Roger Hicks wrote A Darwinian basis for citizen ethics which is a commentary on Citizen Ethics in a Time of Crisis published by The Guardian which takes the form of a “pamphlet with contributions by ‘prominent thinkers exploring key questions about ethics today.’”
He did a great job of exampling the circular logic of attempting to apply Darwinism where Darwinism does not belong.
Roger Hicks wrote:
I agree entirely with them that ETHICS is fundamental to solving the problems of modern society – on which, not just our well-being, but our very survival depends. However, useful ethics cannot exist in the vacuum of idealised, romaticised, theologized, or purely opportunistic values and assumptions, which characterise the Guardian’s assemblage of “prominent thinkers”, but must be rooted in the Darwinian nature and demands of the individuals and groups to which they apply.
Now, being firmly ensconced in a Darwinian worldview he naturally (pun intended) expects, nay, demands that we adhere to his worldview. This is tantamount to the atheist anthem which John Lennon sang in Imagine, “I hope someday you’ll join us, and the world will live as one”—just give up your views, agree with our and, as they say in common parlance, “It’s all good!”
But why Darwinism?
Why Darwinian? Because man is a product of Darwinian evolution and thus essentially Darwinian in nature. Any ethics not based on this reality lacks sound and sustainable foundations.Before continuing, let me clarify what I mean by “Darwinian”, because the word has been terribly misused and abused – to the extent that there are now powerful taboos against using it in any social or political context, because of its association with a ruthless struggle for survival and advantage over others, which is incompatible with a just and harmonious social and political order, social Darwinists having used it to justify social and racial inequalities, and the Nazis their ideology of a master race with the right to subjugate or exterminate what they deemed to be inferior races.
The main point that I wanted to draw out is very well elucidate by the very next sentence,
There is certainly a brutal and ruthless side to our Darwinian nature, but our capacity to love, reason and empathise with others are also its products.
Thus, the bottom line point is that according to presuming Darwinian theory; whatever has happened was Darwinian and so whatever has happened was Darwinian.
This is why Sam Harris argues that rape played a beneficial evolutionary role and why when Richard Dawkins stated “You could say that, yeah” when this was stated, “Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six” (see, Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com).
Presuming a Darwinian history there is absolutely nothing that can be brought in as evidence against it since all things, even objections, are subsumed into Darwinism. For example Darwinism is “brutal and ruthless” and also enjoins “love, reason and empathise.”
I say “enjoins” because Dan Barker stated, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” (and apparently, what is good is that “abortion is a blessing” and concluding that Jesus was “a moral monster”).
Darwinism is all and in all, “Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past”—Richard Dawkins.
Darwinism is a catch all term and unchallengeable as agreeing with it serves a Darwinian purpose and disagreeing with it serves a Darwinian purpose.
Thus, we must follow Darwinism up until we do not like (as per modern day first world country “ethics” de jour) and then we must rebel against Darwinism as rebellion against our Darwinian nature is also Darwinian.
It is no wonder that Philip S. Skell, “the father of carbene chemistry,” member of the National Academy of Sciences and Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University noted:
Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive — except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed — except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.1
Also, Benjamin Wiker seconds that observation by noting the following in his consideration of “Game Theory”,
By using games with fewer rules than Candy Land, the Darwinian game theorists are claiming ‘to uncover the fundamental principles governing our decision-making mechanisms.’ We’d better take a closer look, starting with their presuppositions…The answer seems to be that whatever has survived must be the most fit; therefore whatever exists must have been the result of natural selection. Fairness exists; therefore, it must be the result of natural selection. Q.E.D. It is always convenient to have a theory that cannot possibly be proved wrong.2
From this follows the insistence upon adherence to useful Darwinian ethics which, of course, end up in dogmatism (dogmatheism) as it was expressed thusly by Roger Hicks “useful ethics cannot…but must be…we need to…We need to” and yet, if I disagree then, you guessed it, that too is Darwinian.
Lastly, note the Darwinian altar call as Roger Hicks preaches his pseudo-gospel, “…Darwinian ethics, which might yet save us…”