In the same way, though animals are somewhat more versatile, not only are some species more well-suited than others to survive and flourish in certain areas, but the natural variations that exist within species may cause certain members of that species to be “favored” over other members. Perhaps, in one location, thin beaks on birds may be more efficient at gathering seeds from small crevices. Perhaps, in another location, there are large nuts available which require a large sturdy beak in order to crack them. In each of these environs, the animals most likely to die will be the ones least suited to survive in that environ, and the animals that flourish will be the ones most well-suited to survive there. Through the process of time and such selections as progressively occur, living things change within species to adapt to the conditions that they are presented with.[2]
There is, of course, no “justice” or “injustice” to this process: It is completely amoral, as the process itself affects no conscious choices. While we call the process “natural selection,” nature never makes a selection: The world simply is what it is: Some traits work out better for the animals that possess them, and some trait do not.
Mankind also survives in the world, but unlike other animals, his principle tool for survival is not claws, or beaks, or wings, or any other purely physical characteristic, but his mind, and the adaptability that it allows him to have. Nonetheless, mankind still lives in the physical world, and must perceive that world as it exists correctly in order to have the maximal chance of survival. In some environments, it may be more useful to build a boat than a cart – in others more useful to do the reverse. In all cases, if one’s life depends on making the most-correct decisions based on the extant condition at hand, those who make decisions most closely in conformity with reality will survive better than those who do not.
However, as philosophers from Plato to Locke have noted, mankind like other animals, has the ability to survive by appropriating the efforts of others. This can be accomplished many means – force, guile, sympathy, misdirection – but mankind alone has an additional way: By using government to force such assistance, and to legally disarm and outlaw resistance to such appropriation. Man also has a second unique quality of action: He can deliberately choose maladaptive strategies and ignore the results. Natural Law theories, and John Locke’s in particular, address the particular problem of appropriation of the efforts of individuals to favor chosen recipients (such as, for instance, nobles and royalty.) Locke’s prescription for government in society, upon which in large part America was founded, was designed primarily to attempt to prevent what Locke perceived as a never-ending-cycle of government enlargement and degradation, leading inevitably to eventual revolt, and the start of the cycle anew. This was to be accomplished by acknowledging that individuals had legally inalienable rights to live their lives as they chose, which government was unable to breach – even if it seemed like a good idea at the time. [3] In this way, though Locke preceded
It is against this critically important backdrop that Sumner and Ward battled, respectively, for laissez-faire government non-intervention, and active socialistic or communitarian government management of the lives of individuals in society. Though Sumner is a sociologist, his argument is principally constructed as an economist would argue – seeking to identify not only the visible consequences of positive actions, but also the hidden consequences of the “what-would-have-been” that are prevented by the visible action – the more subtle results that cannot be observed because they have been foreclosed by other actions. In this style of analysis, Sumner is much in the style of Frederic Bastiat, though he terms his object of examination “the forgotten man.”[4]
Sumner argues that before “A and B decide what C shall do for D,”[5] they first ought to have a moral justification for doing so – not just for desiring to provide for “D” but for appropriating from “C” in the first place to do so – especially since “D” is typically not particularly deserving or well-defined, and “C” is not the rich target from which “A” and “B” intend to take the money, but is in fact “D’s” hardworking, employed, but relatively poor neighbor. As Ayn Rand would have termed it, the question of “Provided by whom?”, never goes away merely because one wishes to do good deeds for others. Sumner argues, in the same vein as Adam Smith, that the aggregate results of individual actions and decisions will be better for the whole of society if individual’s attempts to cope with life and reality are not meddled with and altered by government.
Ward, on the other hand, sees great possibilities in social engineering as a means of achieving success for society. “Man cannot finally consider himself superior to other animals until he supplants genetic with telic [teleological, or “purpose based”] progress by applying his intellect to his own improvement.”[6] He called for “the improvement of society by cold calculation”[7] – socially organized and guided reform[8], run by an elite who would prescribe how society should be run. Interestingly, this not only begs the question of how this “elite” – who have not actually achieved any particular success in life aside from writing books or teaching classes – “knows” in any positive sense that its ideas are better than those already in operation, but also postulates that all individuals in society should accept as immutable factors with which they must cope not only reality and the circumstances they find themselves in, but also the whims of political reformers and politicians.
Ward appears to completely miss the idea that
[1] Various lectures in biology over several decades, as well as varied independent readings.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Twenty-five years study of philosophy, and an undergrad degree in same.
[4] William Graham Sumner. What the Social Classes Owe to Each Other. (1883) http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/HTML.php?recordID=0317#LF-BK0317front02
[5] Ibid.
[6] Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought. p 75.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment