Following on my previous post about the Liberal Race Realist movement, a commenter links to an article by the very liberal philosopher about what he proposes, a movement called the Darwinian Left. He is a much better thinker than I am, so I will just quote him:
A Darwinian left would not:• Deny the existence of a human nature, nor insist that human nature is inherently good, nor that it is infinitely malleable;
• Expect to end all conflict and strife between human beings, whether by political revolution, social change, or better education;
• Assume that all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning. Some will be, but this cannot be assumed in every case;
A Darwinian left would:
• Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like;
• Reject any inference from what is ‘natural’ to what is ‘right’;
• Expect that, under different social and economic systems, many people will act competitively in order to enhance their own status, gain a position of power, and/or advance their interests and those of their kin;
• Expect that, regardless of the social and economic system in which they live, most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation;
• Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends;
• Recognise that the way in which we exploit nonhuman animals is a legacy of a pre-Darwinian past that exaggerated the gulf between humans and other animals, and therefore work towards a higher moral status for nonhuman animals, and a less anthropocentric view of our dominance over nature;
• Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them.
In some ways, this is a sharply deflated vision of the left, its Utopian ideas replaced by a coolly realistic view of what can be achieved. That is, I think, the best we can do today – and it is still a much more positive view than that which many on the left have assumed to be implied in a Darwinian understanding of human nature.
There is not much I can add to this fine piece of eloquence and brilliant thinking, so I will just leave it at that and let the commenters go at it. Singer is definitely a major thinker who is no stranger to controversy.
Also, I would like to reiterate once again that we liberals do not subscribe to all of our crazy views just because we are self-hating Whites or because we are evil or anything like that. As philosopher Michael Levin notes, we believe all this crazy stuff because we want to be good. We want to be nice, and we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. With all of the other problems Blacks have, why bring up the IQ gap? It’s like kicking a man while he’s down. “Oh yeah, and one more thing, jerk! You’re stupid too!” Even if it’s true, why bring it up? It’s unseemly and mean.
I’m not even sure liberals believe all the crazy stuff we say. Get a liberal alone when no one is listening, and a lot of surprisingly race realist stuff comes out of his mouth. We’re just too nice to talk about it company, and we really want to believe all the crazy alternatives, so that’s what we believe.
Look at the responses of Blacks to my race realist stuff. They come here to the comments section and they’re all huffed up and pissed. They’re also really hurt. We liberals don’t like to make people mad, especially Blacks. We don’t like to hurt their feelings.
And especially, we don’t like the implication in all of this that we are racists. We liberals hate being called racists. It makes us mad and especially it hurts our feelings. We are not racists, so it hurts us and bewilders us to be called that. It’s like calling a thin, pretty woman fat and ugly. She knows it’s not true, but it makes her mad anyway.