John G Westの"Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (5/7) 相対主義

インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのインテリジェントデザイン部門であるCenter for Science and Cultureの副センター長であり、シニアフェローである社会学者Dr. John G. Westが、自著"Darwin Day in Americaをダイジェストした"The Abolition of Man?"を読むシリーズ


A fourth influence of scientific materialism on public policy has been relativism. Darwinian theory in particular has supplied a powerful justification for evolving standards in politics and morality. Part of the justification is by way of analogy: If evolution is the normal state of the natural world, why should it not be regarded as the normal state of politics?


The preeminent achievement of applying the evolutionary paradigm to politics was the doctrine of the evolving Constitution championed by Woodrow Wilson and other Progressives. No longer would American government be hamstrung by a static understanding of human nature or human rights. It must adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of new conditions. In the words of Wilson:

進化的パラダイムの政治への適用の大いなる業績はWoodrow Wilsonなどの進歩主義者たちによるものだった。もはや米国政府は人間性や人間の権利について静的な理解に煩わされない。新たな条件の調整に合うように、適応し進化しなければならない。Wilsonは次のように述べている:

[L]iving political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of Life.... [A]ll that progressives ask or desire is permission...to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.[20]


[20]Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, with an introduction and notes by William Leuchtenburg (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 41-42.
Dr. John G WestはこのWoodrow Wilsonの記述にどういう違和感を感じているのだろか。

その前後を見れば、Woodrow Wilsonは特に感銘を受けるようなことを言っているように見えない:
The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick co-operation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their co-operation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.


All that progressives ask or desire is permission -- in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.


Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776. Their bosoms swell against George III, but they have no consciousness of the war for freedom that is going on today.

米国の批判者の一部は、1776年7月4日にフィラデルフィアで署名された独立宣言を超えたことがない。彼らはGeorge IIIへの敵愾心はあっても、今日において進行中の自由を求める戦争を意識していない。

[Woodrow Wilson: "The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People", 1912]
Dr. John G Westの引用はかなりアクロバチックだ。「機械ではなく生けるもの」という表現だったのを、「法則に従う生物機械」という意味合いにしている。そこまでしても、Woodrow Wilsonの記述に違和感は感じられない。どうも、Dr. John G Westは、"Darwin"という単語そのものを問題にしているとしか考えられない。また、"相対主義"らしきものも見当たらない。

で、よくわからないWoodrow Wilsonの引用のあとに、Dr. John G Westは次のように続ける:
But the link between Darwinian theory and relativism is not merely analogical. In The Descent of Man, Darwin depicted morality as the evolving product of natural selection. Rather than reflecting timeless standards of truth sanctioned by God or nature, moral codes evolved by natural selection to promote survival. As the conditions for survival changed, so did what was moral for any species. In one situation, maternal love might be moral; in another situation, infanticide. In one situation, kindness might be moral; in another situation, cruelty.

しかし、ダーウィン理論と相対主義の関係はアナロジーだけではない。"The Descent of Man"において、ダーウィンは倫理を自然選択による進化の産物として描写した。倫理は、神あるいは自然によって認定された、時間を超越した真理の反映ではなく、生存のために自然選択によって進化したものである。生存条件が変われば、種の倫理も変わる。ある状況では、母性愛が倫理であるが、別の状況では幼児殺しが倫理になるかもしれない。ある状況では、親切が倫理になり、別の状況では虐待が倫理になるかもしれない。

While Darwin surely hoped that traditional virtues were biologically beneficial in 19th century Britain, if circumstances changed and those virtues no longer promoted survival, he would have to grant that they would no longer be virtues. Darwin himself admitted as much in a particularly startling passage:


If...men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.[21]


[21]Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981), Vol. 1, p. 73. This is a reprint of the first edition, which was published in 1871.
インテリジェントデザイン支持者によるダーウィンの引用は、ほぼ確実にQuote Miningになっている。原文はこんなかんじ...
It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely-different objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.


[Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man"]


==>Discovery Instituteフェローの歴史学者Richard WeikartのQuote Mining (1) Steven Pinker (2008/09/07)

で、Dr. John G Westは次第に自然主義の誤謬の派生品へと近づいていく:
Whatever his own personal moral preferences, Darwin's reductionistic account of the development of morality left little room for objectively preferring one society's morality over another's. Each society's moral code presumably developed to promote the survival of that society, and so each society's moral code could be considered equally "natural."


Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origin of the family was just as relativistic. It was clear from his account that there was no right form of marriage or family life for every time and place. Sexual standards differed sharply across societies and human history, and each form of family life was adapted to meet the biological and environmental requirements of its particular situation. In Darwin's framework, everything that regularly occurred in nature must be regarded as normal almost by definition.

やっと、Dr. John G Westの主張がここで明確になる。すなわち、Dr. John G Westは自然主義の誤謬の派生品を自明として語っている。

ここで、自然主義の誤謬の派生品とはOliver Curryが列挙したもので、以下の8つ。

  • Moving from is to ought (Hume’s fallacy). ("である"から"べき"へ)
  • Moving from facts to values. (事実から価値へ)
  • Identifying good with its object (Moore’s fallacy).
  • Claiming that good is a natural property. 
  • Going ‘in the direction of evolution’.(進化の方向へ向かって進め)
  • Assuming that what is natural is good. (自然なものは良いと仮定)
  • Assuming that what currently exists ought to exist. (現に存在するものは、存在すべきと仮定)
  • Substituting explanation for justification.

==>自然主義の誤謬の派生品 (2008/02/11)

While for the most part Darwin did not press his relativistic analysis of morality to its logical conclusion, he laid the groundwork for others who came after him. The ultimate result of Darwinian moral relativism can be seen in the sex research of zoologist Alfred Kinsey and the moral pluralism embraced by sex education reformers from the 1960s to today. Their efforts to convince the public that all variations of sexual behavior are "normal"--including, according to some of them, adult-child sex and even incest--were a logical culmination of the approach Darwin pursued in The Descent of Man.

ほとんどの場合、ダーウィンは倫理に関する相対主義的な分析を論理的帰結につなげていないが、後から来る者たちの基礎を築いた。ダーウィン的倫理相対主義の究極の結果は、動物学者Alfred Kinseyの性研究や1960年代から今日に至る性教育改革者たちが主張した倫理多元論に見られる。彼らの努力は人々に対して、あらゆる種類の性行動が"普通"なものであり、一部の者たちにおれば、大人と子供の間のセックスや近親相姦さえもが、ダーウィンが"The Descent of Man"で追求したアプローチの論理的到達点だと納得させた。
Dr. John G Westの言う"相対主義"とは、自然主義の誤謬の派生品を指しているようだ。ただ、宗教右翼あるいは福音主義キリスト教の教義に「自然主義の誤謬の派生品」がビルトインされているのか、その存在に気づいていない。


==>自然選択を嫌うLeftistたち (2007/03/07)

posted by Kumicit at 2010/01/09 15:03 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]