Evolutionary relativists believe that human beings have evolved in a way that gives them special needs, talents, capacities, weaknesses, strengths, desires, diseases, aggressions, and compatibilities. Our mathematics, music, medicine, sexual attraction, and philosophy all stem from our genetic endowment, gained and nurtured in the long process of evolutionary adaptation to an hostile environment. Standards, including moral standards, are proper when they are consistent with our genetic makeup and our evolutionary past; for example, standards of good food or good music do not properly include repulsive things.
    An evolutionary relativist believes that standards are objective, not in the sense that they are completely independent of human beings, but that they can be judged correct or incorrect based on objective genetic makeup and on evolutionary survival value. Ignoring genetics and evolution invites idle, foolish, and dangerous speculation. We developed standards through a long evolutionary past, adapting as we went, so that, given our genetic endowment, we can better survive the rigors of social life.
    The evolutionist may not believe that there is a single best set of standards. Instead, our genetic nature and evolutionary past may be consistent with many standards. The way we respond to sound may mean that some standards in music are improper, while others are better. But it might also mean that several standards, though quite different, are equally consistent with our genetic structure. The linguist believes that many languages are equally good, but still insists that languages must have some essential ingredients, for example, that all languages draw from the same basic set of sounds human beings can make. In some languages, meaning varies by tone, but all languages must have some regularity in meaning. Evolutionary development of languages provides a basic list of standards, but each language has its peculiar standards, all consistent with universal standards and all responding to different evolutionary scenarios.   Top

The status of standards

    Evolution does not produce eternal or absolute standards. All standards are relative to a particular time and place in the evolutionary flow of human life. Presumably, sometime in the long distant future, human standards may be considerably different. That depends on our future evolutionary path.
    On this view, evolution supports or directs all standards, whether in science and mathematics -- or in ethics. If this is true, it explains why so many people have different standards and why standards also have commonality. We have different languages, yet each language serves common needs and meets common requirements. Similarly, a moral standard is inadequate if it is out of line with genetic makeup or with our common evolutionary past, but our past differs from group to group, perhaps even from person to person. This evolutionary view respects differences, but recognizes the importance of generic and evolutionary commonality.   Top

Evaluating evolutionary relativism

    Evolutionary ethics finds little support among philosophers. Although our evolutionary endowment may have a significant influence on moral and non-moral standards, we are able to select standards that conflict with, or are independent from, our evolution. Some music is harmful to listen to because it impairs hearing, yet it may be considered good music, and it is only properly played when played loud. This seems to be a matter of personal preference, even though it has harmful consequences. Whether listening to very loud music is morally proper cannot be answered by an appeal to an evolutionary past.
    People have adopted standards which require almost super-human self-discipline -- for example, the standards of sainthood. Those standards are not judged in terms of evolution. This criticism claims that genetic endowment forms a very loose set of requirements for any standard and that human thinking and creativity are capable of developing an enormous range of standards that cannot be adequately evaluated by, and may be somewhat hostile to, an appeal to evolutionary background.
    Philosophers typically reject the view that the existence of a widely accepted standard is evidence that the standard is good for human beings, as an evolutionary view suggests. Furthermore, while an evolutionist might believe that all aspects of a human organism do have some survival value for the species, a moral theorist understands that too many different and conflicting standards exist for us to claim that they all have survival value. Some moral standards even appear to be designed to negate species survival value, like the view of the Shakers, a religious group whose membership was depleted partly because their religion refused to allow sexual relations.
    As we grow up in a society, we learn society's standards and values. We do have needs based on an evolutionary past, and these should be respected, or at least considered, in moral theory. Although our evolutionary past plays a role, we find it difficult to use only our past to determine which standards are correct and which are faulty.   Top