The Essence of Darwinism and the Basis of Modern Orthodoxy 133
nothing implicit about Darwin's commitment to individual selection. He had
looked long and hard at group selection and rejected it."
How DARWIN STRUGGLES WITH, AND "WALLS OFF," EXCEPTIONS. The
exegetical literature on Darwin usually states that he allowed only two exceptions,
in the entire corpus of his writing, to the exclusivity of natural selection on
organisms—first, in permitting some form of group selection for the neuter castes
of social insects, and second, for the origin of human moral behavior. I agree with
Ruse (see point 2 just above) that Darwin did not stray from his orthodoxy for
social insects, though some of his terminological choices invite misinterpretation
today. For human morality, on the other hand, Darwin did throw in the towel after
long struggle—for he could not render altruism towards non-relatives by
organismal selection. Nonetheless, a theory often becomes sharpened (not
destroyed or even much compromised in a world of relative frequencies) by
specifying a domain of exceptions—provided that the exceptions be rare in
occurrence, and peculiar in form. As humans, we surely have a legitimate personal
interest in our moral behavior, but we cannot enshrine this property as occupying
more than a tiny corner of nature (whatever its eventual impact upon our planet,
and whatever our parochial concern for its uniqueness).
In the Descent of Man, Darwin presents his most interesting and extensive
discussion of supraorganismal selection. As an example of his clarity on the issue
of levels of selection, consider the following passage on why natural selection
could not foster altruistic behavior within a tribe—with an explicit final statement
that differential success among distinct tribes should not be called natural
selection:
But it may be asked, how within the limits of the same tribe did a large
number of members first become endowed with these social and moral
qualities, and how was the standard of excellence raised? It is extremely
doubtful whether the offspring of the more sympathetic and benevolent
parents, or of those who were the most faithful to their comrades, would be
reared in greater number than the children of selfish and treacherous
parents of the same tribe. He who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a
savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no
offspring to inherit his noble nature ... Therefore it seems scarcely possible
(bearing in mind that we are not here speaking of one tribe being victorious
over another) that the number of men gifted with such virtues, or that the
standard of their excellence, would be increased through natural selection,
that is, by the survival of the fittest (1871, vol. 1, p. 163).In the light of this conundrum, and as part of his resolution, Darwin does
allow for selection at the tribal level defined as differential success of groups with
more altruists: "It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality
gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the
other men of the same tribe, yet that an advancement in the standard of morality,
and an increase in the number of well-endowed men