Natural selection in morality:
Alexander, like Leslie Stephen, also presented a theory of Evolutionary Hedonism. According to Alexander also the final objective is the equilibrium of the social organism.
Image Source: sloanreview.mit.edu
This ultimate good is the determinant of the propriety of all actions. Moral quality is in maintaining the equilibrium in society. “This moral ideal is an adjusted order of conduct, which is based upon contending inclinations and establishes equilibrium between them.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Goodness is nothing but this adjustment in the equilibrated whole.” As in the animal kingdom so in the ethical world, does the law of natural selection remain active. As the powerful animals triumph over their weaker competitors in the animal world, in the same way, the more complete or powerful ideals defeat and remove weaker ideals in the ethical world.
In this way, according to the principle of natural selection in morals, in the process of evolution in the ethical world, the most balanced conduct is preserved. In the ethical world, this evolution is carried out by education and teaching instead of brute force.
Criticism:
The arguments against this class of theories apply also to the evolutionary Hedonism of Alexander these will be discussed in detail later on. Alexander himself concedes that the processes of moral selection and natural selection are not one and the same thing.
Then what is the use of believing in the ‘Natural selection in morals’. Actually, it is very wrong to apply the theory of natural selection to the Geld of morality because the laws of the moral and the natural world differ considerably.