Culture, Evolution, and the Problem of a Global Morality

Kurt Spellmeyer, Rutgers University, Fall 2002

Assignment 1: The Transformation of Evolutionary Thought across Knowledge Communities

1. One way to think about knowledge is to see it simply as information that can be judged either true or false. But another way to think about knowledge is to view it in terms of "knowledge communities." Evolutionary biologists make up one knowledge community, a community to which de Waal himself belongs, as did Darwin before him. Another community might be described as the "interpreters of evolution," some of whom are practicing scientists and some of whom are journalists or freelance writers. Within this community we might include Thomas Henry Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Robert Wright and Matt Ridley. A third group, by far the largest, might be called "non-scientists" or, better yet, the "general public."

For this assignment, I would like you to explore the ways in which knowledge first created by the community of biologists gradually made its way into the common knowledge of the general public. What distortions, improvements, elaborations, or applications did Darwinism undergo along the way? Is the contemporary public understanding of evolution primarily the outcome of scientific inquiry or have other forces shaped it just as much as science, possibly even more. What might these other forces be?

When I ask you to "explore" the transformation of evolutionary thought as it travels from the knowledge community of biologists to the larger community of the general public, I really want you to make some kind of point or argument. In order to make that point, you will need to draw heavily on the evidence provided by de Waal, but I am not looking for a simple summary of his argument. The last part of my question–about the forces that have shaped scientific knowledge after it has left the hands of scientists themselves–requires you to engage in some intelligent speculation. Why might non-scientists be so ready to see nature as "red in tooth and claw," if this is not what Darwin tried to tell us? Could it be that attitudes and values that have nothing to do with science have somehow gotten mixed up with our popular understandings of evolution? What might be some of the cultural, social, or economic sources of those attitudes and values?



Assignment 2: Culture and Biology, Voting and Altruism

For your second assignment, I would like you to use de Waal and Guinier to make an argument that answers this deceptively simple question:

Is the principle of "majority rule" consistent with genuine Darwinism, as Frans de Waal represents it, or is it more consistent with the "survival of the fittest" mentality that de Waal calls into doubt?

If you decide that majority rule is indeed consistent with altruism, then you might also make case that Guinier's idea of proportional representation is less consistent with altruism or completely contradicts it.

On the other hand, if you decide that Guinier's proposal is consistent with altruism, you might also try to demonstrate that majority rule undermines reciprocity and therefore flies in the face of our biological heritage.

Alternately, you might make the case that evolutionary biology cannot give us any meaningful guidance at all about the conduct of our political affairs. Remember, however, that you will need to explain in some detail--drawing on de Waal as well as Guinier--why biology and culture constitute completely separate domains.

Finally, you might argue that evolutionary biology lends support to both majority rule and proportional representation. Perhaps both serve the ends of evolution in different ways.

Please bear in mind that this assignment is not asking you to compare and contrast de Waal with Guinier. Instead, it asks you to explain how the evidence provided by de Waal might confirm, contradict, and/or complicate Guinier's argument.



Assignment 3: Finding a Ground for Moral Action

We have now read three authors--de Waal, Guinier, and Nussbaum--all of whom explore in different ways the subject of ethics or morality, whether their concern is altruism among primates, an ethically responsible political system, or the need for universal human rights. None of them argues for divine revelation as the basis of ethics.

For your third assignment, please write an essay that answers the following question:

Do human beings need moral absolutes? If so, where will these absolutes come from? If not, what sort of morality might be an adequate alternative?

As you consider the possible sources of moral absolutes, use the three authors to explore the complexities that are produced by any answer to this question. If you are intrigued by the possibility that moral absolutes might come from science, then please explain how we should respond to disagreements within the scientific community. Consider in particular the debates between de Waal's camp and its opponents. Similar complexities must be faced by those who turn to religion as the bedrock of morality. After all, the various religions do not always agree, and even within a single faith, sharp disagreements are quite common. After considering science and religion as sources of authority, you might turn to our nation's civil institutions: the people, you might argue, should be free to decide on the morality they will abide by. But in that case, who qualifies as "the people"? If we base our ethics on majority rule, does that mean that the majority is always right?

Needless to say, the questions I have posed here are huge ones. Your paper does not necessarily need to reach a firm conclusion: a strong essay might simply explore the complications of the issue or demonstrate the strengths and limitations of various possible answers. If you manage to come up with a truly compelling answer, one developed in a well-organized, persuasive, and articulate way, you will qualify not only for an "A," but also for a Nobel Peace Prize. Good luck!

Back to top

Back to Sample Sequences