Biological Relativism

2012-08-01

I don´t know if this a new concept or not. If it is than I would like to introduce it as a new term of biological relativism. Relativism has many different shades and forms, but most commonly is associated with the denial of absolute truth and subjective interpretations depending on such entities like language or culture (cultural relativism).

The greatest criticism of relativism is always been that with this stance no definite point of view can be taken, since it’s a logical impossibility. This is depicted in the contradiction of the argument “All views are relative”, if it’s true than the argument is self refuting, because it makes a universal statement. In an absolute logical sense this might be true, but I feel for an everyday use of reason, relativism provides a good standpoint for thought, since it urges one to question one’s own assumptions.  

How about this absolute logical sense than? Relativism states that there is no absolute truth that can be attained by humans. This I am willing to grant, but this does not mean that its fundamental assumptions are negotiable. I believe it is instructive to see it from a biological point of view (hence the name). Evolution primed us with tools to coexist, presuming man as herd animal which is strongly supported by science and literature. These tools are the physical shape of our hands, our eyes and other physical entities of our body, however also our emotional, social and logical capacities stem from the same evolutionary background. Therefore our moral principles that guide our moral behavior are founded in our evolutionary past, as they seemed most beneficial for the survival of the group. A moral principle like “the golden rule” makes sense out of an evolutionary point of view to ensure group survival and peace in the group.

I am not suggesting that the golden rule is an evolutionary meme, or what you would like to call it. For this it is far too specific. I believe our moral principles are general notions like; avoid pain, eat when hungry, sexual urge etc. creating moral lego blocks that can be combined into different structures. Therefore the term relativism is very appropriate, because the amount of possible combination of these entities is endless. Even these in themselves have different weights of importance, for example it is easily observable that in male dogs the sexual urge dominates the urge for food. This is seen when male dogs refuse to eat when a female dog, in heat, is nearby. I am not suggesting that we are dogs or that humans are this simple. I rather see biological relativism as a bottom up approach to morality. From what science has shown us, nature works like this too, atoms build molecules, molecules build proteins, proteins build tissue etc. every time there is an increase in complexity, creating unlimited possible outcomes. However this does not mean that all rules associated with this process are negotiable or random (relative for a moral sense), atoms can only combine in a certain way to form molecules, proteins need favorable conditions to form and be sustained etc. Therefore I believe the same applies for moral principlesl, there are rules that are not negotiable how these ‘lego blocks’ of morality can be combined. Making it biological relativism as a morality not random or arbitrary but rather a complex evoling structure. We can never know the shape of what it will take, but we can understand the process how it is formed.