Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.
Social instincts. Now there’s an oxymoron for some. If human instincts revolve far more around sustaining the least dysfunctional social interactions, then the reality of memes would seem to be of considerable more importance than the emphasis that some place on the “selfish genes”. Of course, they will insist, nature revolves around the survival of the fittest individual. Capitalists, for example. Memes are only along for the ride.
Come on, how smart do you have be to be to note that going back to the caves, human social, political and economic interactions are both profoundly and problematically intertwined in both genes and memes. To say where nature stops and nurture begins given any particular context is, from my frame of mind, a clear signal that someone is far more concerned with first embodying and then sustaining the “psychology of objectivism”. Rather than displaying a willingness to acknowledge how ineffably and inextricably “I” and “we” and “them” are compounded in a world in which a mixture of both is nothing short of seething at times given all the variables involved.
Okay, so how is this then squared with the way it basically works between all other animal special on the planet: survival of the fittest, make makes right, the law of the jungle. Well, first by noting that within any particular species itself that is often very strong social bonding. Thus while some animal groups include a fierce hierarchy and even cannibalism, others far more oriented toward the other end of the spectrum. But the bottom line is that no other species of animals comes even remotely close to that which we call memetic interactions. Even among the most intelligent creatures – ilovephilosophy.com/search. … 921c6f66e4 – you don’t find scientists and philosophers and psychologists and sociologists. You don’t find anthropologists examining the culture of the species or historians examining the species down through the ages.
And, sure, since no philosophers have come close to reconfiguring deontological intellectual contraptions into actual day to day human interactions in a community of any real size, why not accept that “for all practical purposes” a utilitarian approach to conflicting value judgments may well be the “best of all possible worlds”. Not counting those who, for whatever reason, philosophical or otherwise, prefer “might makes right”.
And, in my view, the most “significant mental power” in regard to morality is to recognize its limitations.