1. INTRODUCTION
|
|
||
|
|
||
| 1.2.4 Botched Theories And The Coefficient Of Murder | ||||
|
Let us look at this implication of the Oedipus
paradox, and consider the ethics involved in the assertion of evolutionary, and
indeed, ethical theories, seen in a definable ‘coefficient of murder’ associated with the theory. The option to ‘act according to the
law of evolution’, survival of the fittest, natural selection (death of the
competitor) informs the agent, who proceeds to violent means, sure in his
rejection of ethics of the grounding in science of biological law. Unscrupulous
warmongers are handed a gift of legitimation by Consider, then, the non-linear self-interaction of theory and history, a possibility current science never examines, assuming an objective observer, able to formulate laws, although he is actually time-bound, with an ambiguous present. How will a theory taken as true by induced belief alter present behavior in the agent of theory? Apply that to the idea of conflict for survival. Notice the difference between what is observed in the past among unconscious organisms and what is taken as a theory about that, in the present, given the conscious subjectivity of the observer. Here theory is suddenly an historical variable. The record speaks for itself here. The belief in natural selection tends toward a de facto revision of ethical assumptions. Its promotion can become a Machiavellian strategy. The metaphor of a trial, hence a crime, is ironically appropriate for a subject as ridden with dangerous potential for criminal suggestion as Darwin’s theory, with its legacy of Social Darwinism, from which Darwin himself is forever being exempted, even as the subtitle of his book gives the game away, and all blame is foisted on Spencer. Lest that be gainsaid, the innuendo in that subtitle is clear. Atrocious potential contradictions lurk in all improperly defined historical theories. With dangerous theories the result of the Oedipus paradox can be a calamity. The assumption, without verification, that survival of the fittest, hence conflict, leads to biological innovations, then applied to social evolution, induces ‘theory realization’ in the expectation of a future good. We should define the ‘coefficient of murder’ in units of ‘casualties per paradigm shift’ as the measure of the downfield consequences as mayhem in the action of those who ‘thought the theory correct’ in its paradigm span, and took the theory into their own hands as scientific law voiding considerations of ethics. Darwinism has a very high coefficient here in the emergence of Social Darwinism. Coefficient of murder Theories of evolution are historically embedded, observations looking backward toward the past, and scramble the time domain of the theory’s application, as they assume a universal generalization that overflows into the present and future. Thus ill-conceived they might induce ‘acting out the theory’ as a paradoxical ‘should’. We could then study the historical course of the theory and measure its casualty rate. Those casualties remain after the next paradigm shift as irreversible consequences in history. We can run amok with theories. And the coefficient of murder for Darwinism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century must be high indeed. We need a way to defend ourselves from being accessory to this by assent to theory. Although this measure is obviously difficult to compute in practice, it is a real parameter, and we can see the woeful genocidal consequences of this theory in the period after its appearance. Further, those who knowingly dissemble in the promotion of this theory should keep this measure in mind, even as they easily evade ‘trial’ in the pursuit of ‘science’ and the promotion of economic action. Those who unknowingly fall into this trap as dupes of propaganda deserve the restoration of their ethical intuitions in the debriefing of theory. The coefficient of murder hangs heavily over Darwinism. The foundation of science must be truthful behavior, yet here the suspicion of Machiavellian behavior arises in the promotion of a paradigm. We should be alert to ‘lie detection’ in Darwinian public behavior. The point is that we should always take theories provisionally, if this self-interaction of theory and agent is based on speculative interpretations of the never closely observed evolutionary record. The confusion arises, no doubt, from the analogue of economic behavior. Economic competition This issue is made complicated by the fact that economic competition might increase productive efficiency in market systems. Whether this is true or not (e.g. compared with socialist systems), it is not a statement about biology. The observation is not grounds for a universal generalization about evolution! This false analogy was the original serpent in the garden that cast its blight on Darwinism. Let us note that the functioning of markets requires conformance to law, and presupposes a system to enforce ethical restraint! How biologists could have wrested this example from market systems to apply to the whole of nature, stripped of its cultural ethics, is perplexing, and a story of ideology indeed. |
||||