Can humanism be made compatible with evolution?

Matias

Many atheists I know subscribe to a philosophy/ideology/religion called "Evolutionary Humanism". German philosopher Michael Schmidt-Salomon has even written a manifesto for this movement (already translated into English, in case you are interested).

But what many adherents of 'evolutionary humanism' fail to see is that the two elements are mutually incompatible - if taken seriously and at face value.

"Evolution" means:
- a blind and purposeless process driven by variation plus selection plus reproduction;
- survival of the fittest ;
- the absence of morality (to be a predator or parasite is not reprehensible) ;
- no species is superior to other species (only in the tautological sense that species A spreads at the expense of species B because A has traits that make it "fitter" in a certain environment. In a different environment the roles could be reversed)

"Humanism" - on the contrary - is inherently moral.
- It is morally good to help human beings, even - or especially! - if they are weak and helpless ; - all humans have an unalienable right to live and to flourish;
- all humans have an unalienable dignity - from which "human rights" are deduced (nothing comparable exists in nature!);
- because of their inherent dignity human beings stand out among other animals (if 100 wildebeests die in a flood, that is nature; if 100 humans die in a flood it is a tragedy.)

The conclusion is logically inevitable: Not only Humanism cannot be deduced from evolution: there is no common ground of "evolution" on the one side and "humanism" on the other side; the two have no "interface", just the way an old mechanic typewriter and a computer are incompatible. Both are based on totally different principles.

Therefore, you cannot have it both ways: you cannot embrace a naturalistic world-view and at the same time believe in human supremacy (with its human rights or human dignity).
As Yuval Noah Harari rightly pointed out: Humanism, be it in its socialist, liberal of evolutionary variety, is a kind of religion for modern people who cannot subscribe to any of the traditional versions of religion.

Frotunes

Some arguments question the claim that humanism is moral, inherently or otherwise.

Matias

Some arguments question the claim that humanism is moral, inherently or otherwise. — Frotunes

How can humanism be amoral? As I said: if 100 wildebeests die in a flod, that is just nature, but if 100 human beings die (for example refugees drowning in the Mediterranean Sea), it is a tragedy. If you look at the two events with same moral attitude ("shrug it off"), you are certainly not a humanist.

Frotunes

I’m unable to decipher what you understood by what I wrote, but I simply meant that there are arguments that exist (I might happen to agree or disagree with them), which say that human nature isn’t “good by nature” as claimed by some (just look at all the human history and prehistory, with its narrative riddled by wars, prisons, brutality, injustice, oppression, and so on ). Then there’s the other argument that human nature is, quite the inverse of this view, actually “bad by nature”, or in other words, people are naturally greedy, selfish and brutish until you teach them not to be by whatever it is, religion, culture, long years of education, arts and literature, philosophy, whipping, burning at the stake, prison, whatever.
I’m not siding with either of these vague, generalising and rather simple arguments.
I’m also not claiming I disagree with the view that 100 people dying in a flood is worse than 100 wilderbeasts dying in a flood. Nor that I agree with that. I’m not God, I don’t agree or disagree with such things. I have no control over them, so I do what I’m supposed to which is to just take things as they are. I might occasionally choose to not only try and see the world as it is, but also how it ought to be, but I mostly just dismiss such fantasies as useless wishful thinking. But if I could somehow save either the 100 people or the 100 wilderbeests (I don’t know what sort of weird fantastical situation I would be in to be making this decision), then I would choose to save the people. Is this because I’m human, cultured, kind, educated, not a savage, conforming to social standards, soft on the inside, habituated, brainwashed, wise, I do not know. I’d just make that choice, oblivious to the (welcome) side effect that it will make me a more genuine human being, for whatever that means. I also understand that many people would do the same, and many wouldn’t, for this reason or that. The latter contradict your point.

Frotunes

Of course I assume you’re not mistaking what is meant by humanism here, which is the study of human nature, and not the humanist movement in philosophy, which would be a fallacy because it’s very definition would contradict your statements.

Matias

↪Frotunes

I wrote in my OP about humanism; you wrote about human nature. The two are neither synonyms nor are they connected in such a way that the one could be deduced from the other.
Nowhere do I claim that "human nature is good"

Frotunes

Yes, I should've tried reading the whole thing properly before constructing an elaborate response. I apologise, but I think what came out is also interesting nevertheless.

Frotunes

On the original question, I’m not sure what exactly you’re after, but I believe one line of the explanation for humanism is that human nature is good because it was evolutionarily advantageous to be so. The premium was in cooperation rather than in competition.

Terrapin Station

The first problem with your opening post is that morality arose out of evolution.

Frotunes

↪Terrapin Station

What is your argument that is didn't?

Frotunes

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/12/evolution-of-morality-social-humans-and-apes/418371/

"Nearly 150 years ago, Charles Darwin proposed that morality was a byproduct of evolution, a human trait that arose as natural selection shaped man into a highly social species—and the capacity for morality, he argued, lay in small, subtle differences between us and our closest animal relatives. “The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind,” he wrote in his 1871 book The Descent of Man."

Terrapin Station

↪Frotunes

In other words, he's saying that morality and evolution have nothing to do with each other. I'm disagreeing.

Frotunes

↪Terrapin Station

Precisely the opposite of that. He is saying that evolution shaped humans to be very social, and that required what we would call morality. So it was a sort of byproduct. But I suppose it's not so black and white like that. Being strong, dominating and aggressive might've been often times even more advantageous than just being good to each other and helping each other. But perhaps that is where immorality and savagery came from?

Terrapin Station

↪Frotunes

Matias wrote that "Evolution means . . . the absence of morality"

Frotunes

↪Terrapin Station

He said that evolution is blind and impartial to such things as morality and only cares about survival and reproduction. He didn't say evolution discriminates against morality, so it'll happily accept morality (or immorality) if that means increased chances of survival and reproduction. For humans it was being moral that was advantageous, or in other words, those that were moral and helpful to each other survived while others perished.
Helping ones kind is not even an exclusively human thing, many other social animals do that, especially herd animals. I don't think buffalos help each other and their offsprings because they read some Greek philosopher on virtue, so it must be an evolutionary thing. Likewise, I don't think lions fight with other visiting male lions in their vicinity because they don't like the newcomer's face. They're built by evolution to do that, because those of their ancestors that did survived and passed on their genes, while those that didn't perished.

Valentinus

↪Matias

If morality is a product of evolution, then what the human is in the order of existing things becomes a puzzle.
But the puzzle is not like describing a quality as coming from different antecedents. Knowing that the source for a particular way of thinking is involved with stuff outside the presuppositions of that thought doesn't mean one has grounds to dismiss it.
To the degree that the assumptions are not compatible with each other should be the caution of comparison as such.

Banno

"Evolution" means:
- a blind and purposeless process driven by variation plus selection plus reproduction;
- survival of the fittest ;
- the absence of morality (to be a predator or parasite is not reprehensible) ;
- no species is superior to other species (only in the tautological sense that species A spreads at the expense of species B because A has traits that make it "fitter" in a certain environment. In a different environment the roles could be reversed) — Matias

That's just crap.

Frotunes

All humans have both good qualities and bad qualities. Perhaps they have more of one than the other, perhaps not. All humans do both moral and immoral things, some more so than others. Morality and immorality themselves are subjective things.
In prehistory this meant both co-operation and murder, sharing and theft, worship and cannibalism, trading and war. But after civilization, we raised the standard of morality. The very word "civilized" requires some form and degree of morality. Of course this varies from culture to culture and geography to geography. But then again the past century showed us that perhaps we're not all as moral as we'd like to think.

Tzeentch

It sounds like 'evolutionary humanism' tries to rationalize philanthropy. Sadly, that is not how nature works. The good do not "thrive", at least not in the material sense.

Morality, from an evolutionary standpoint, is a handicap. The person who is prepared to put his morals aside will always stand a better chance than the person who cuts their options by sticking to their morals, however commendable the latter may be.

Now, some of you may argue that morality helps humans survive, but there's a catch here. Being moral means one sticks to their morals no matter what. An immoral person can still conform to morals whenever it suits them, but can also deviate from them if there is more to gain. The key here is flexibility. This is why rich and successful people are often of questionable moral fiber.

That isn't to say being a moral person isn't commendable. It's just nonsense to try and rationalize it from an earthly, evolutionary standpoint.

Terrapin Station

↪Frotunes

Are you disagreeing with "Matias wrote that 'Evolution means . . . the absence of morality'"?

Frotunes

↪Tzeentch

I completely disagree with you.

Frotunes

↪Terrapin Station

Yes, because Matias never wrote "'Evolution means . . . the absence of morality " as you quote. He simply said he evolution was blind to morality. Evolution means the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Your fallacy here is:

Socrates did not like to read poetry.
Hence, Socrates means the absence of poetry.

Go to sleep.

Terrapin Station

↪Frotunes

Weird. On my screen, those words are there, under his name, in the first post, and the way I put "Evolution means . . . the absence of morality" in my own post was via copy-pasting the Matias post. Must be something weird with your computer.

Frotunes

↪Terrapin Station

You're quoting a non-existent sentence. Please take your medication. Bye.

Terrapin Station

↪Frotunes

Seriously, it's on my screen when I look at this thread.

Frotunes

Also I disagree with Yuval on

"As Yuval Noah Harari rightly pointed out: Humanism, be it in its socialist, liberal of evolutionary variety, is a kind of religion for modern people who cannot subscribe to any of the traditional versions of religion."

No it's not. Humanists don't believe in divine beings, magic and other fantastical things. It's a philosophy. Humanism has nothing to do with some mythical being up in the skies. It's a secular thing. What the hell is he talking about?

Frotunes

In fact this quote itself looks dubious. I'm beginning to suspect Terrapin Station and Matias are in fact the same character with different masks on?

Frotunes

↪Terrapin Station

Do you have schizophrenia?

Terrapin Station

↪Frotunes

Can't say that I'm eligible to join your club for that, unfortunately.

deletedusercb

You're quoting a non-existent sentence. Please take your medication. Bye. — Frotunes

it's a perfectly fair quoting of Matias...

"Evolution" means:
- a blind and purposeless process driven by variation plus selection plus reproduction;
- survival of the fittest ;
- the absence of morality (to be a predator or parasite is not reprehensible) ; — Matias

deletedusercb

"Evolution" means:
- a blind and purposeless process driven by variation plus selection plus reproduction;
- survival of the fittest ;
- the absence of morality (to be a predator or parasite is not reprehensible) ; — Matias

Evolution led to the development of morality, first in protomoralities in many animals, perhaps even fully morality in some of the higher mammals, and then in us.

Can humanism be made compatible with evolution?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions