| The Correlation Between Evolution and Ethics: Commentary | ||
|
Copyright 2002 Adam Barnhart. All Rights Reserved. Fair use of this document.This is surely the oldest thing that I've written that will make it onto this site. Concomitant to that is the natural feelings one has about work that's had time to age: I wonder if some points could be argued more clearly, wish I'd developed a couple of good ideas that are essentially hidden in there, and laugh at the youthful recklessness in the writing. In a few places, the writing is a little embarassing, in others, it's a little better than perhaps I'd remembered it. Nothing atypical.That having been said, in poring over all of this again, and having to retype the entire work to get it online (I composed this one on an old Epson QX-10, a piece of hardware that's long since been placed in the Hardware Hall of Fame), I'll actually confess to still generally liking it. And, in the main, agreeing with it. As a "fuzzy," I only wish I'd been more confident at the time to be bolder with my thesis and braver in approach, using more biology than I did. I'm steadfast in my belief now that one can't carry on a meaningful conversation about ethics without addressing our evolutionary history -- and that scientists who attempt to remove the social ramifications of their work from what they do are doing themselves, and the intellecual community at large, a tremendous disservice. This work has another, more personal meaning to me. I did a tremendous amount of research (for me, that's who) to put this together, taking cues and gathering information from a wide variety of sources. With the paucity of information available on the historical aspects of evolutionary philosophy, this really became a chance for me to put together a unique synthesis. In retrospect, I see this writing as the first evidence of my own voice really emerging and aggressively addressing issues that I don't feel had been addressed well previously. Interestingly, as a (semi-) professional historian, it's clearly the historical voice which is weakest and most erratic in the piece; the philosophy and evolutionary biology of the piece sound fairly loudly throughout the piece, but the historical voice, which was meant to hold everything together in its initial conceptualization, gives way to the less moderate elements at a few important junctures. This is where I wince most at what's been written. That having been said, I've decided to indulge myself, choosing not to amend what was originally written. Instead, the piece is here in its original form, warts and all, more than a decade old. Though the philosophical position of the piece isn't precisely where I am now, it seems to me any attempt to mediate between now and then would only cloud the issue and weaken the original argument without placing something geniunely more coherent and interesting in its place. So, with all the above caveats in mind, I sincerely hope you enjoy the text. |
|