Charles Darwin's Theory Of Atural Selection

Although the theory of evolution is ancient, Darwin’s version is a relatively new archetype. Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander, believed in the origination of life from non-life, and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. However, Charles Darwin takes evolution a step further, supplementing this ageless theory with the ideas of natural selection. This doctrine states that nature acts to sustain small, advantageous genetic mutations, and that the fittest individuals survive (Darwin’s Theory of Evolution). Therefore, “[n]atural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild” (Darwin’s Theory of Evolution).

Furthermore, this theory does not apply strictly to physical traits;

The answer to this problem is given through the idea of game theory, which is the study of human conflict and cooperation within a competitive situation. This theory essentially states that in any given competition between humans, we choose to act in a way that results in the suboptimal outcome (Rosenberg 156). For example, millions of years ago, two hungry scavengers who happened upon a newly slain carcass would face a dilemma; clearly, fresh meat indicates that a predator is near. As a result, humans found that it was easier to defend against predators and hunt by working together rather than compete with each other (Rosenberg 159-161). Over time, the individuals utilizing this cooperative trait were the only ones surviving, as those who acted out of selfishness began to die out. As a result, amiability became a trait that was selected for, and this is believed to have given rise to a core morality (Rosenberg 168). This begs the question: where does morality come from? Philosophers like Immanuel Kant would say that it comes from a certain, lofty sense of morality that supersedes reality, but evidence suggests that morality’s uncertain origins evolved from

A pure moral philosophy relies on the a priori concepts of reason, rather than empirical observation. He holds that this is feasible, because humans presume that moral obligations are binding for everyone, not just for particular people in specific situations (Kant; Foundations 4-5). However, if one holds to a Darwinian evolution, a pure morality is not possible. As stated above, a core morality likely rose from individuals choosing to cooperate with others to ensure their own safety, leading to these traits, such as niceness, being selected for. Thus, morals cannot be independent of human experience, as the choices that early humans made in everyday life led to the development of these morals. (Rosenberg 168). Unlike Kant, Darwinian theory does not make dualist distinctions between particular