NATURAL GOODS AND MORAL VIRTUES

What, so far, is the conclusion of this enquiry?

There is a conflict between current popularizations of biological theory and ethical – let alone spiritual – demands. The problem is not posed merely by ‘Social Darwinism’ but by the ‘Sociable Darwinism’ that Darwin himself (and others) have advanced, and that marches with other fashionable tendencies. The goal of goodness, it is widely supposed, is to perpetuate one's kind, and there can be no ethical standard beyond species survival. Since species are, of their nature, fissiparous (tending to break up into other new species), this species relativism is hardly distinguishable from cultural relativism: each sub-breed of humanity might reasonably expect to be a species soon. Religion, if it is justified at all, is merely as a means to species – or group – survival by social solidarity. Even religious leaders increasingly speak of ‘cultural traditions’, find proselytism vulgar, and praise particular rites simply as giving those familiar with them a sense of belonging. The praise is paradoxical: those who wish there to be Anglican Cathedral choirs (say), although nothing that such choirs sing is ‘true’, must depend as much as tourists on there being ‘naive believers’ who will innocently maintain the traditions that ‘sophisticated believers’ (that is, unbelievers) merely relish. A tradition self-consciously maintained merely to allow us something to ‘belong’ to is as futile as any project self-consciously adopted to give us a ‘sense of purpose’ (stamp-collecting, fashion, or visiting old churches).