Darwin and Wallace

 Alfred Russel Wallace

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

Variations in traits among a species lie behind Charles Darwin’s concept of natural selection. Those traits that lead to differential reproduction success [1] will cause some of a given species to reproduce at a faster rate than others. For example: a brightly colored insect increases its chance of being eaten by birds, leading to a lowered reproduction rate compared to their dull-colored counterparts. As more brown and gray beetles survive, they pass on the brown or gray gene, resulting in more beetles of that color.

Variation + differential reproduction + heredity = natural selection. Natural selection is the driving force behind Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, detailed in his book, Origin of Species, written on his return from the five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle. He joined the voyage in December 1831 as a geologist and naturalist, but biology began to consume him early in the five-year trek around the point of South America, to the Galapagos Islands, he noticed differences in animals seen in Chile and those seen on the Galapagos Islands, and in differences from island to island. From there, he began formulating his theory of natural selection.

Alfred Russell Wallace, inspired in part by Darwin’s 1839 Journal of Researches [2] (known to modern readers as The Voyage of the Beagle) an account of his Beagle research, and Alexander von Humboldt’s’ Personal Narrative [3]. Wallace joined the Mischief in 1848 for a similar journey. He and entomologist Henry Bates spen more than four years collecting specimens of animals, plants, and insects inhabiting the Americas. He suffered setbacks, including a fire aboard the Helen, the ship that was to return him to England. He was able to save little of his specimens and samples. A brig sailing from Cuba picked him up after days adrift in a small craft and arrived in London in 1852. He departed England again in 1854, destined for the Malay Archipelago, where he devised his own theory of natural selection.

In early 1858, Wallace contacted Darwin regarding the similarity of their work. Darwin offered to send Wallace’s paper to a scientific journal. It was published the same year with a description of Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s Origin of Species published the following year, preceded Wallace’ The Mandalay Archipelago by ten years, likely a major reason for Darwin’s continued fame. Charles Darwin was already well known in academic and scientific circles when Wallace began his own voyage of discovery. Several websites outlining the accomplishments of the two men indicate that, had not the respected Darwin published his work first, the theory promoted by Wallace are likely to be as varied and complex as the differences in their life experiences. In any even the world has accepted “Darwinism” in its lexicography, while Wallace remains a footnote.

 #

Notes:

[1] Differential reproductive success: A situation in which some individuals leave more offspring in the next generation than do others, often due to traits that confer advantages in survival and/or reproduction.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/glossary/differential-reproductive-success/#:~:text=A%20situation%20in%20which%20some,in%20survival%20and%2For%20reproduction.

 

[2] Charles Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries, 1859

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6951

 

[3] Alexander von Humboldt, 1822 Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America, During the Year 1799-1804

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6322

#

 

Everyday Ethics

 

Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash

The writer of a paper on the subject of ethics will likely find that he can fill several pages on various philosophical and religious theories and many more on terms, and more again on a seemingly endless list of philosophers and theorists who have contributed to a maze of sub-categories under the main branches of the subject. That is an ambitious project for the scholar, but what of the man and woman on the street who wants only to do what is right? High-sounding theories and ten-dollar words offer interesting reading, but in the end do nothing to help the average person know how to behave in situations in which the “right” choice of action is unclear. For that reason, this essay does not dwell on those arguments that rely on supernatural authority.

A look into the study of ethics reveals a glaring question that the reader cannot ignore: do ethical rules of behavior exist outside the individual? Does the external world contain something called ethics? The question persists even without reliance on supernatural authority.

If the answer to those questions is “yes,” then the individual is naturally ethical, and unethical behavior is an aberration. If the answer is “no,” everyone must answer to a code of behavior imposed on him from the outside, whether he chooses to honor or violate that code. Society, in that event, decides what constitutes an unethical act.

Thrasymachus thought that “people believe in right and wrong only because they are taught to obey the rules of their society. Those rules, however, are mere human contrivances. Thrasymachus added that the ethical code of a society will reflect the interests of it ruling classes…” (Rachels, Problems from Philosophy, 2nd ed. p.149). But Thrasymachus did not have the benefit of our long view of history; a view in which we have seen that it is the ruling classes most in need of ethical codes. It is the reverse of Thrasymachus’ thesis that appears true — those morals or the lack of morals by rulers “trickles down” to their subjects. That is, we, the people.

So, in societies in which religious courts hand down draconian punishments, shouts of approval by the citizenry reflect the corrosive influence of the courts and of the corruptive power of the society’s religious influence. In societies such as ours, in which commerce and profit carry tremendous power, the citizenry is often quick to apologize for the crimes and atrocities of the ruling class.

The disagreement about objective moral values need not rely on dictates from a god or on the arbitrary rules of a society. Enter Evolutionary Ethics. Philosophers disagree about the existence of, and the nature of evolutionary ethics and many do not even take the subject seriously. Yet, morality as a factor of a psychology that has its roots in survival answers the question of whether ethics exist in the “real” world. In the sense that human and animal behavior is “real,” the answer is “yes.”

Philosophers like to nit-pick the details of any particular ethical theory, but such microscopic scrutiny does little to aid our average man and woman with day-to-day ethical choices. A woman seeking an abortion will (unless evolution has failed her) consider the consequences of her actions. She will look at her own beliefs and opinions as well as those of her society. She will short-cut some of those considerations, ponder over some, and eliminate others. But her final decision will come from a soup of her personal philosophy, her religion, her place in society, and the whisperings of her psychology, both genetic and learned.

A soldier might consider that killing is wrong, but his training and the survival merits of killing the enemy can outweigh any thought of philosophical absolutes. He knows it is wrong to kill his kin or a member of his group, but the killing of an enemy in combat contributes to the survival of the kin or group. After all, morality has survival value, and the fine-tuning of his moral code is every bit as important, and likely more so, than any absolute statement concerning moral behavior. Apes have been shown to practice reciprocity in lice-picking by other apes. If a fellow simian does not reciprocate in the practice, he will be shunned in future lice-picking sessions. If a human behaves ethically toward another, he will cease that behavior if the other does not in turn behave ethically toward him.

But humans have shown an amazing ability to rationalize their behavior in ways that are not beneficial to the group, and to believe their own rationalizations. When banking and business executives brought down the world economy through acts of unregulated greed, enhancing their own fortunes by vast amounts of money that drained retirement, pension, and investment accounts around the world, they continued to pay themselves and their cronies extravagant wages out of taxpayer bailout money. They justified their actions by stating (and believing) that ludicrous compensation was necessary to keep the best executives in place and not lose them to foreign markets. Their rationalization was so complete that they were unable to see that those “best” executives had displayed incompetence beyond comprehension.

If an objective morality exists, and if it exists in the evolved mind, then we can assume that the mental fountainhead of morality does not “think out” the fine tuning of an individual’s decisions nor does it offer perfect answers to the problems of lying and misinformation, larceny and greed, and murder. That is left to another part of the mind/brain. The evolved morality knows only that it is wrong to injure a member of the family or group or to engage in behavior that limits his survivability.

Dependence on supernatural authority for our morals is to rely on unicorns. The average person without formal education in philosophy must depend only on his and her own evolved mind to provide a moral code. We can only hope that when listening to that inner ethical voice, he and she will hold to or develop the understanding of rationalization in the role of violating both their own moral code and the ethics of their society.

##

This essay also appears online at 
https://kenshel717.medium.com/everyday-ethics-5f48cbbda3dc