Kevin Zhao Professor Beatty Darwin and Revolution The evolution of morality As Darwin remarks in his book The Descent of Man, altruism does not appear to be an evolutionary advantage in the natural selection of the fittest individuals. Altruistic individuals who are willing to sacrifice for their fellow men and communities tend to perish early in times of war and crisis, and therefore one naturally assumes that they are less likely to pass on their altruistic genes to their offspring (Darwin, p163). However, as Darwin investigates further, he points out that there appears to be a much more compelling and deeper explanation of the usefulness of morality in the process of natural selection of man. It turns out that when we show a desire to help others, we expect to receive their help in return and therefore obtain mutual security and preservation (Darwin, p163). Although Darwin displays in his book a certain level of skepticism regarding the anti-nature evolutionary advantage of moral qualities in men, he affirms the advancement of human morality as a upward progress that elevates our society to a higher position and enables men to become more highly civilized and refined. Similar to Malthus claim on the role prudence plays in preserving desirable traits and eliminating undesirable traits in society, Darwins positive affirmation of the value of morality is supported by his recognition of the parallel of struggle for existence between nature and human society and by the intrinsic

importance of morality that is unique to human sentiment and contributes to the progress of society and the prosperity of nation. In what appears to be a scathing critique of the distortion of the laws of natural selection by external interference of human society, Darwin affirms the noble value of sympathy. He writes, with savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the progress of eliminationnor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature (Darwin, p168). Modern society, by means of poor law, medical intervention and modern technology, has preserved weak and debilitated individuals who would have been eliminated in the state of nature. Nietzsche also argues that the artificial value of Christianity has distorted our natural sense of good and made modern men subservient and weak while suppressing the strong and passionate individuals. While Darwin recognizes that this sympathy for evolutionarily disadvantaged members of our species is counter to the natural tendency of evolution, he thinks that the moral quality of sympathy has a value of its own in a civilized human society. What distinguishes human society from the animal kingdom is precisely our ability to express feelings and emotions and we have evolved further because of our unique ability. Here, Darwin shows that he is not the heartless advocate of the bloody, raw struggle for existence that many of his critics make him appear to be. He appears to be quite sympathetic to the value of human morality. In another example, Darwin, who first questioned our modern medical intervention that prevents the sick from their natural death, emerges as a defender of human morality as he remarks that the surgeon who is trying to save the patient is not motivated by cold calculation of natural selection but by

his sympathy and love for a human life (Darwin, p179). Moreover, as Darwin mentions earlier, the instinct of sympathy was originally acquired through natural selection (Darwin, p163). By displaying sympathy for each other, we can also help each other in times of crisis and therefore preserve our existence. More importantly, our society constantly undergoes an evolution of favoring the preservation of those with noble moral qualities and eliminating those who are morally inferior. Darwin writes, In regards to moral qualities, some elimination of the worst dispositions is always in progress, even in the most civilized society (Darwin, p172). Again, Darwin first points out the potential problems of the societys distortion of the laws of natural selection where the poor and intemperate reproduce at a much higher rate compared to the sagacious and prudent individuals who tend to marry late and have fewer offspring (Darwin, p174). However, as Darwin also points out, the morally inferior individuals also have a much higher rate of mortality. Our moral virtues appear to have an evolutionary advantage. Thomas Huxley in his essay Prolegomena observes a process of evolution of human society that is remarkably similar to the view of Darwin. Huxley writes, what is often called the struggle for existence in society, is a contest, not for the means of existence, but for the means of enjoyment (Huxley, XIV). What Huxley means is that the evolutionarily advantageous traits of human society are determined by the preferences of the masses in a certain context. He writes, in a large proportion of cases, crime and pauperism have nothing to do with heredity; but are the consequence, partly, of circumstance and, partly, of the possession of qualities, which, under different conditions of life, might have excited esteem and even admiration (Huxley, p40). In other words, what is

advantageous for the evolution of men in society is defined not by the outward physical and intellectual fitness but by what is socially useful and good. Huxley remarks, since in a large number of cases, the actual poor and the convicted criminals are neither the weakest nor the worst (Huxley, p43). Similarly, Darwins view of the function of sympathy and altruism in the process of evolution rests on the fact that these qualities are socially beneficial and help the preservation and the dominance of tribes and society. The struggle for the means of enjoyment in modern society, namely possession of wealth and capital, favors those with qualities such as energy, industry, intellectual capacity and tenacity of purpose (Huxley, p43). As Huxley demonstrates, it is the great body of the moderately fit who possesses such favorable capacities and is able to preserve their traits (43). Like Darwin, Huxley does not repudiate what appears to be a severe disruption of the equilibrium of the laws of nature, namely, the selection of traits by human society that does not promote the survival of the fittest in its original sense. Huxley writes, the struggle for the means of enjoyment is a process that tends to the good of society (p43). Similarly, Darwin argues that the rise of a nation depends on an increase in the actual number of its population and on the number of men endowed with high intellect and moral faculties (Darwin, p178). The seemingly inconsequential morality that play little role in natural selection is for Darwin an important factor in the progress and the evolution of human society towards a higher, more prosperous state. As both Darwin and Huxley point out, our feelings of remorse and fear of reprobation of our fellow men, while entirely unnatural, compel us to act in a just and socially appropriate way and therefore contribute to the preservation of our society.

Finally, Darwin shows that he is aware of the harmful consequences of excessive restraint placed upon humans by the moral code of society when he criticizes the Catholic Church for suppressing the voice of freedom. He writes of the evils that Catholic Church has committed by executing the most courageous and free individuals (Darwin, p179). As a utilitarian thinker, Darwin is interested in this life here and now. The struggle for existence is one of the main conditions that allows us to achieve earthly glory, happiness and progress. Morality is useful in so far as it serves as a form of environmental pressure that contributes to the development of noble sentiments and the advancement of human species and to the elimination of socially undesirable traits. However, when morality gets in the way of human development and progress, it should be condemned. Huxley also argues that excessive self-restraint is destructive to human society (p19). Like Darwin, Huxley also saw the parallel of struggle for existence that exists in both nature and human society but he cautions against the weakening of evolutionary pressure in human society that might preserve the weak (p180). At some point Darwin would happily discard morality if the progress of human race becomes completely arrested by our moral restraint and he would happily embrace the Nietzschean notion of superman who exemplifies human species in its finest, strongest and most evolved form.

On Sexual Revolution In his book, the Selection of Relation to Sex, Darwin writes, when pairing of man is left to chance, with no choice exerted by either sex, there can be no sexual selection (Darwin, p358). For Darwin, sexual selection represents a conscious choice made by men in earlier periods of history when he is guided more by his instinct than by reason. The savage man, who was more powerful than woman by nature, kept her in a poor state of bondage and slavery and consciously selected the woman for her appearance (Darwin, p371). The point Darwin is trying to make is that natural selection does not justify the subordination of women to men in a more advance and civilized society where men are more guided by reason. Sexual selection in regards to the selection of favorable physical traits of women is only a historical necessity but should be open to modification and change as we progress. As Darwin also demonstrates, in all other animal species, it is the female sex who has the option of choosing the male companion who developed various ways and faculties to try to charm the female sex. As Darwin remarks, in lower class of animals, males use various sounds and musical notes to charm the females (p332). Therefore, the existence of women in human society as an object of ornamentation and beauty selected by males can be seen as an abnormality rather than an immutable occurrence of nature. Drawing from Darwins theory of the arbitrariness of sexual selection, Charlotte Perkins Gilman turns to the abnormality of the subjugation of the female sex in human society. She remarks, we are the only animal species in which the female depends on the male for food, the only animal species in which the sex relation is also an economic relation (Gilman, p5). Like Darwin, Gilman

compares the human species to all other kinds of animals and insects and comes to the conclusion that the development of sexual selection in human society is a deviance from the norms of the nature. Furthermore, Gilman identifies the external environmental pressure that causes the exclusion and oppression of certain races of people and women in general: the economic relation in which women have to depend on men for survival. What unites the view of Darwin and Gilman is that sexual selection is a product of the historical circumstance but not an innate feature of natural selection that favors the preservation of certain desirable sexual traits. In the concluding paragraph of the chapter on sexual selection, Darwin remarks, it deserves particular attention that with mankind all the conditions for sexual selection were much more favorable, when men had only just attained to the rank of manhood than during later times (Darwin, p383). The corresponding explanation that Darwin gives is that in the early periods of the history of mankind, men are guided more by instinct than by passion and therefore they would overcome women by their superior physical strength and mind, keep women in the condition of bondage, practice infanticide, defend women against the intruders and select women based on their external appearance (Darwin, p383). What Darwin is suggesting is that women are selected for their external appearances not by the laws of natural selection but by the conscious effort of men. Women are forced to adapt to the conditions that men have imposed on them, and as a result, they are able to pass on the gene of physical attractiveness to their offspring. As Darwin puts it, hence women have become more beautiful, as most person will admit, than man (Darwin, p372). Gilman makes a similar point in her essay that women were born into a society

whose values and moral codes are set by men. She remarks, economic progress, however, is almost exclusively masculine (Gilman, p8). As a result, a relationship of dependency is established. Gilman points out that women have come to depend on men for the essential social and economic services that are not possible without the help of men. She writes, the labor now performed by the women could be performed by the men, requiring only the setting back of many advanced workers into earlier forms of industry; but the labor now performed by men could not be performed by the women without generations of effort and adaptation (Gilman, P8). An important thing to note about Darwin and Gilmans point is that men are not biologically superior to women in a way that would cause the selection of women based on physical appearance or the subjugation of women to the economic relation of society. Darwin points out that in many other primitive societies such as a village in Africa, women have the choice of selecting the male companion and hold significantly more power than traditional patriarchy societies. Darwin remarks, for in utterly barbarous tribes the women have more power in choosing, rejecting, and tempting their lovers, or of afterwards changing their husbands, than might have been expected (Darwin, p373). Gilman also writes, this is not owing to lack of essential human faculties necessary to such achievements, nor to any inherent disabilities of sex, but to the present condition of woman, forbidding the development of this degree of economic ability (Gilman, P9). Therefore, natural selection in the original sense of promoting the survival of most favorable traits does not seem to apply to patriarchal societies in which women are restrained from developing their capabilities and full potential because of the artificial conditions set by men. It may be true that in earlier societies women are inferior to men in body and mind

and therefore are driven by laws of evolution to succumb to the more powerful male species guided by instinct to dominate and subjugate women, but as Darwin suggests, even though women have been selected for beauty in long periods of history, they should receive a different treatment when circumstances have changed so that men have come to rely on the faculty of reason in modern society. Precisely, Gilman would agree with Darwin that through the use of reason, men could recognize that women should be allowed to develop their physical and mental faculties to the fullest extent by laws of nature. By looking at the numerous examples of animals and insect world where females occupy considerably more power than men and where male spiders only serve as a transient tool of fertilization and are eaten alive by the female counterparts, Gilman sees that the subjugation of women is an extraordinary abnormality according to the laws of nature and that women are kept in the state of bondage in human society not for the infallible reason of deity but for irrational purpose that runs counter to natural selection. As Gilman describes, women are reduced to sexual objects in society because of this irrational economic relation. She remarks, it is not the normal sex tendency, common to all creatures, but an abnormal sex-tendency, produced and maintained by the abnormal economic relation which makes one sex get its living from the other by the exercise of sex functions (Gilman, p39). Another important insight Gilman provides is the contradictory masculine perception of women as mothers. Darwin mentions that the sexual selection of women based on beauty is assumed by most men as natural and coming from a long tradition and history, yet Darwin thinks it is arbitrary and can change according to the change in circumstance. Gilman also points out that men see

women as mothers who hold the sacred duty of maternal instinct and that when women deviate from their assumed natural roles and became wage workers, they are seen as house servants with a low status (Gilman, p15). Yet one can easily recognize the glaring contradiction in this masculine view of womanhood and maternal responsibility and identity. The entire premise is predetermined by the male view of females but not by some kind of natural laws or immutable truths. It is also arbitrary. In the state of nature, this narrow view of women as maternal guardian with no economic utility to society is clearly absurd. Even in primitive societies, women hold important responsibilities in the household and are accorded economic roles instead of a symbolic, empty title with little meaning.