Once again, Heinlein uses Dubois to espouse his militaristic philosophy. In this instance he attempts to ground this militarism in "a scientifically theory of morality"- that all morality boils down to the instinct to survive. Never mind that the majority of humans would reject that morality is a fallacious definition set to biological impulses- and that religious, spiritual and philosophical thought starkly contrast this statement, even if we follow Heinlein's logic he ends up incorrect.
If Heinlein is correct and humans have evolved to accept a certain code called "morality" and that our morals then constitute another construct called "society," humans should instead become more peaceful and cooperative. Hundreds of thousands of years ago, when the the negligible human population was struggling to survive, only the most cohesive groups would have survived, and they would have survived by adopting practices that encourage cohesion.
Some biologists predict that evolution should result in the eradication of charitable and self-sacrificing individuals. Why is this not the case? Because people realized that the best way to survive is through cooperation instead of force. Even if survival is all there is- I expect that a future society would have evolved even further towards this understanding- ridding the world of violent, self-destructive societies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment