Link

Darwin for Liberals?

by David Bloomberg

February 15, 2001

Darwinism, in the form of Social Darwinism, has historically been considered part of the right in politics. Supposedly Darwinian ideas were used to validate their actions as "survival of the fittest" while they engaged in cutthroat competition and trod upon the "weak."

However, bioethicist Peter Singer says it is the political left who should adopt Darwin, in his recent book, A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation (Yale University Press, $9.95, hardcover, 64 pages), part of the "Darwinism Today" series of short books.

While Darwin himself rejected the idea of using his theory of evolution in any ethical or political manner, others have suggested "might is right…and every cheating tradesman is also right," as one newspaper review of his work said.

But Singer notes that, as science, Darwinism is apolitical. There can just as easily be a Darwinian left as a Darwinian right. While the Darwinian right has emphasized competition, a Darwinian left would focus instead on the importance of cooperation and altruism, matters that were not widely understood as being part of evolution when Social Darwinism first gained favor. Furthermore, he wants the left to use a current understanding of human nature, based on Darwinism, rather than on idealistic notions about perfect societies and utopias.

The use of scientific principles in politics is a sticky area. But evolution, Singer notes, just happens. There is no moral path for it. People must use the scientific information along with their own morality to make decisions.

So even if scientists discover a basis for what makes people happy or sad, that does not tell us what we should do. Certainly, Singer says, if we find there is a disposition to join in a group act of violence against outsiders, morally we should face it head on, but the science would just tell us about the disposition; we must use outside ethical input to conclude that it should be rejected.

Singer lists several ways in which Darwinian thinking can help in politics. Among them is a rejection of the idea, sometimes found in Social Darwinism, that social policies hurt the human species by helping the "less fit" survive. Furthermore, Darwinian thought can help by debunking non-Darwinian beliefs that have become influential in politics. For example, some believe that man has dominion over all other animals, and may even cite Biblical verse showing that God gave Adam this right. But if man is, in fact, an evolved animal instead of a special creation by God, the question of how to treat other animals has a different impact.

One major reason given as to why the left should pick up on Darwinism is the focus, starting in the 1960s, on cooperation as a factor in survival and genetic success. This is an important part of Darwinism that cannot be overlooked. And cooperation, he notes, is definitely in keeping with the values of the left – those who are on the side of the weak and the oppressed and who want to reduce suffering.

Social Darwinism's focus on competition was one of the main reasons the left has not previously picked up the flag of Darwinism. Another reason, according to Singer, is because evolution says man is not, and never will be, perfect. Many in the far left want a perfect society, a Marxist utopia. But it won't happen. Instead, Singer says it is much better to understand the inherent imperfections and try to work around them and solve whatever problems they breed. Our ideas and politics are a product of our evolution, and we need to see how they have come about in order to properly address them.

By looking at human nature in this way, we can determine variables that need to be taken into account in trying to make society better. For example, there have been many different types of governments throughout history, but almost all human societies have some type of government or leadership – it is a nearly universal feature of human behavior.

Of course, merely recognizing something as being found in most human societies doesn't mean it is "good" or "right." These governments or hierarchies are a prime example. We should not expect to rid humanity of this feature, for whenever it has been tried, a new hierarchy has come out of the old. "Getting rid of it is not going to be nearly as easy as revolutionaries usually imagine." Instead, we should try to work within the knowledge that there will be hierarchies, and make things as equal as we can while acknowledging this fact.

Even there, Singer says that no matter how much the left may strive for an egalitarian society, evolutionary history shows that there will always be a cheater – somebody who takes advantage of those who work hard. Again, rather than trying to fight this reality, Singer says the left needs to recognize it and change the pay-offs so cheating is no longer a successful strategy. "This means not turning the other cheek."

Singer concludes by trying to distinguish a Darwinian left from the left of today and yesterday. For example, a Darwinian left would not deny the existence of human nature, expect to end all conflict, or assume that all inequalities are due to oppression. It would ground policies on the best available evidence about human nature, take into account that people will act competitively in some cases and cooperatively in others, promote cooperation, and continue to side with the underdog.

Singer thinks politics grounded in the facts of science can work, and it would certainly be nice to at least try. Unfortunately, in today's political world, facts seem to make less difference than ever, while dogma is king.

A version of this article originally appeared in Skeptic magazine.

-- Done (done@done.com), February 17, 2001

Answers

You don't know what'ch you got till it's gone, Pave paradise and put up a parkin' lot..

Joni Mitchell

-- Will (righthere@home.now), February 17, 2001.

I enjoy Skeptic magazine on occasion, myself, and thanks for the article. I fear, however, that either I'm not as far left as I know myself to be, or Singer has NO feel at all for what the left thinks. Since life is all so relative, I have no clue which of the two options is true. I know...it's probably somewhere in the middle.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

Anita, I agree about it being relative. I never considered myself to the left, yet people think I am. I always considered myself in the middle. I don't understand the reasoning of people I consider to the left, why there always seems to be some excuse for the behavior of people who don't do things for themselves when the are able. Why some people think the government owes them a living or owes them every thing they need or want. Why there is such a lack of discipline and responsibility expected or required from people starting in grade school.

we should try to work within the knowledge that there will be hierarchies, and make things as equal as we can while acknowledging this fact.But what is not being acknowledged is the fact that we are not equal. People are different with different abilities and levels of strengths and weaknesses. Some people can lead and others are followers. In any given situation there will be a tendency for people to move into their particular niche. Where some people are good at expressing their thoughts in an understandable and enjoyable manner, I can't. But whenever someone I know needs something fixed, they come to me. From fixing a vacuum cleaner to computer. But they wouldn't think of coming to me to write their resume or design a party invitation.

Society, and even just groups of friends due to the fact that all are not equal in all things. People should be in positions based on their abilities, not on some some preconceived notion that they deserve the right to the position. If they don't have the ability or do but do not put in the effort needed to get where they want to be, it should not be handed to them. For any reason.

I have heard people who have said; "They need to give me that job" as if "they" were some group of people sitting sitting around deciding who gets what job.

The problem with people who have no barriers holding them back and who fail is their own attitude. Not the fault of anyone else.

We aren't equal and it is unreasonable to think we should all be considered equal.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), February 18, 2001.