Darwin’s Descent of Man has caused major uproars
in many sectors of society, be it religion, science, what have you, however, I
found it a bit disappointing to read because it was so vague in terminology and
seemed to lack some basic considerations.
Not only does he consider man to be a “higher being,” which is
controversial as we have previously discussed, but his reasoning behind this
description is because man has intelligence, morals, and reasoning. Yes, I can
see how humans can have a higher reasoning on the technical side of things.
However, as far as the natural order of the world, we are out of tune with
nature and cannot manage without the mechanical interventions that make us seem
more intelligent than “lower beings” but simultaneously hurt us and the natural
world.
Which brings up
Darwin’s theory about morality; he says: “A moral being is one who is capable
of comparing his past and future actions and motives—of approving of some and
disapproving of others; and the fact that man is the one who with certainty can
be thus designated make the greatest of all distinctions between him and the
lower animals […] Consequently he resolves to act differently in the future—and
this is conscience” (235-6). Personally,
I think he is giving man far more credit than deserved and I think that not all
humans have a conscious or possess morals. We would have learned form mistakes,
and as the quote goes, “history repeats itself.” We are habitual creatures that
learn from mild mistakes, but it is more conditional.
What do you guys
think of the morality of man? Is that part of evolution or is it learned? And did
this paper bring you to question the chain of being once again?
I think Darwin's morality argument is deeply rooted in the idea of the Chain of Being. He states that conscience is "the greatest of all distinctions between him and lower animals." If that statement isn't appealing to the idea of the Chain, then I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteAs far as whether morality is part of evolution or is learned, I would say a little of both. There are some things in my life that I've done and then instinctively felt guilty/bad about, even though no one explicitly told me they were wrong. However, I think much of what we consider to be an inborn "conscience" is actually the result of different societal constructs.
I agree that there is a major problem in placing man as the highest rung on the chain of being, but also being the species that defines the chain, as well as all the characteristics that qualify one as being a "high" being. Morality, memory, conscience, etc., are all human constructs, which are largely learned as Darwin hints in his "Descent of Man". It didn't seem, however, that he made the connection within his own work-- that his qualifications for being "human" speak of his own nature- vs- nurture experience, and that, as Emma mentioned in her post, maybe squirrels have their own reasons why they're higher on the chain of being than humans-- we don't know. Perhaps the polypus really is the highest creature on the chain of being. It all depends on one's perspective, which as Darwin states, is largely dependent on one's community and upbringing. Darwin's paper seems to raise many more questions-- both scientific and moral-- than it seems to answer.
ReplyDeleteDarwin's paper may raise more questions than it answers - particularly regarding Man's place on the great "Chain of Being", and whether or not our intelligence, morality, or reasoning are sufficient to place Man at the top of the chain is certainly a point to be debated. There are certainly examples of all three among the animal kingdom. Octopi are excellent escape artists, leaving highly complicated enclosures; while many apes utilize tools to hunt and gather food. Mutualism (a biological process in which two species interact for the benefit of both) is an example of morality, demonstrating the idea of working together for a common goal amongst animals. Dolphins are able to solve difficult puzzles, demonstrating an ability to reason.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one of these traits is not enough, and it is the combination of them that elevates Man. However, as part of the biological system we are attempting to impart a hierarchy onto, we are not particularly well-suited to pass equal judgement. However, there is one thing to note, one thing that certainly sets us apart from other animals: we are almost certainly the only species sitting around debating a chain of being in the first place.
I believe that all humans are moral beings in that we each understand right from wrong, at least as it pertains to us and our perspective, and I believe that all people at least consider this moral standing in their decision making - whether or not they choose to act on that may be a different story, but in my opinion, this ability is what makes humans moral beings.
ReplyDeleteMy issue comes with Darwin's claim that this is what puts man at the top of the chain. As a species, humans seem particularly bad at considering others perspectives and opinions and I think that this lack of understanding can be similarly applied to the multitude of other spices around us. Just because we don't fully understand them does not mean that they do not operate under many of the same constructs as we do; furthermore, it certainly doesn't eliminate the possibility of other constructs that we do not experience and cannot (yet?) understand.
Sarah, I disagree with you when you say that maybe other creatures have their own "reasons" for being highest on the chain of being. Wouldn't that imply that other species the capacity to understand morality? Or is that your point? Even if they do have a sense of morality, it's only to the slightest degree... I completely advocate re-thinking the "Great Chain of Being" as we did in the beginning of the semester; but I also think we can't forget that sentience doesn't necessarily equal morality. Sure, some humans don't have an advanced ethical mindset - but we are certainly, as a whole, more competent in this regard. So, in other words, I agree with Brandon! :)
ReplyDelete