To me, as a guy who likes to think things through, something doesn't quite add up about Darwin's theory on the evolution of the human race. If Darwin is correct that we evolved from some kind of primordial soup where through millions of years plus genetics, the weakest on the earth perish and only the fittest survive,
Darwin's theory is about natural selection. Its not about weakness or strength, its about the traits that are most likely to be spread because they, in some way, increase the survival time and thus potential for reproduction of a member of a species. This has no moral or ethical meaning. The way nature works is impartial. It is humans, only humans, who place values upon things, like delusions of strength and weakness. These things do not exist in nature, but we humans often perceive human ideals and values in nature. Nature is neutral, but yes, your species will die out if they evolve a maladaptation, something which inhibits their ability to survive and reproduce.
Think of a panda before determining that nature will always opt for strength. Whatever works at that time will survive; evidently, this is short-lived due to the masses of extinct species that no longer exist.
then why do we humans jump in heroically in the utmost danger to save the weaker one? Why do we love deeply, forgive and have an inbuilt capacity to discern right from wrong (a moral framework even)? Surely, we should be hardened to such responses and in fact, not even have the capacity to even consider such matters. We would be cold, calculated, amoral terminators, each to our own. Yet, we are not. Far from it. Survival of the fittest and human compassion are not compatible. In their purest form, they are as far apart as east is from west. Can anybody rationally explain this disparity?
Are you sure its not your fairy-tale vision of goodness that does not exist and is incongruous with reality? What makes you think that a moral framework exists? How can we possibly innately know right from wrong, when neither category can be shown to exist in nature, from whence we emerged? Perhaps this moral framework is our instincts, for which we should derive no pride given that we had no hand in it. It strikes me as very Christian, to try and raise humans up above all others on earth, and indeed, this over-measuring of our capacities has destroyed so much of our inheritance. Far from being self-aware caretakers, we act out are instinctive animal nature on a global scale, from which we cannot turn back. I'm sorry, I simply do not see humans as any better then any other forms of life.
I certainly believe in compassion, love, forgiveness, altruism, and I see that they absolutely exist, complete, alongside hatred, fear, envy, violence. There is no disparity in the manifestation of our fictitious nobility. The only disparity and cognitive dissonance that I perceive is the denial of the true nature of humanity as separate from, and above, the weeping world.
Again though, I think the differing points of view on this topic are related to our perception of a deity or higher power. I don't believe in god, therefore I don't overly-value humans above all else.
edit: Though I see with some sorrow how seperate we all are from our true heritage, as citizens of earth which we share with life forms way more plentiful then ourselves. IMO, it is this seperation from the natural world that has caused us all this grief. If only we could go back to our toothless, dirty, caveman past! :D
