Darwin 2: Ethics

The only person to determine an individual’s worth is the individual themselves. They are the ones who must look in the mirror and find contentment in their decisions. Ultimately, the neighbor’s disapproval weighs little on a person’s conscience if that person knows they’ve reached a decision by fairly and thoroughly weighing their options. Which is why, though I desire security and material things, I would chose to be compassionate over being selfish.

Carnegie justifies his industry by arguing that insuring “survival of the fittest in every department” is the reason for our “wonderful material development, which brings improved conditions in its train.” This doesn’t make sense to me. How does our race benefit from a ridiculously wealthy man forcing employees to work in dangerous environment with substandard pay? Sure, a society’s industry may advance, but the people won’t. Their way of life won’t get any better. If one wanted to improve society (and not one’s wealth) then it would seem offering one’s employees fair wages, safe working conditions, and rights would be the way to go. This boils down to Sigmund and May’s idea of reciprocal aid. Reciprocal aid is “more vulnerable to abuse” because “each could gain still more by withholding its contribution”. Gain more at what cost and for what end though?

Though this is a photo of Rockefeller I believe it still applies to this DB. Carnegie and Rockefeller were both big business men who had no qualms with suppressing their workers, polluting the environment, and funneling money to people who were least deserving.

I don’t believe we are wired to manipulate others in order to ensure our own survival.

I agree with Kropotkin when he says that compassion, “Mutual Aid and Mutual Support”, are “of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution.” The way Carnegie (and many other CEOs) run their business and control their industry does little for mankind. In fact, they exploit and dominate weaker individuals and businesses. It seems to me that Carnegie justifies his actions as “societal evolution” to make himself feel better; he isn’t talking about the evolution of our society though- he’s talking about his own cultural evolution. Cultural evolution is egocentric for it is “a desire to perpetuate itself by setting up expectations and assigning roles…” (Pinker 470).

What I found Kropotkin's argument convincing because he included actual scientific observation. He is not simply an idealist who hopes that compassion is an aspect of man's nature.