Created from Animals

The first part of this book is primarily a brief Darwin biography. From there the author proceeds to delve into deeper questions regarding morality, ethics, sociobiological ethics and the sacredness of human life.The main thesis of this work is that 'Darwinism leads inevitably to the abandonment of the idea of human dignity and the substitution of a different sort of ethic.' In other words in former times our culture had a "traditionalist ethic". This states that God is the head honcho, created humans and other animals, endowed man with superior abilities and that animals are the subject of man who for the most part can choose to do whatever he wants to with animals. Rachels' point is that this ethic has been usurped by a Darwinian ethic which states that man and his capacities are no different than animals even if man has a superior level of rationality. In Rachels' view this is how we should look at the world 'post-Darwinian'. The idea that man is above and beyond animals is now moot since we are all related. This is an interesting point but regardless of whether you believe in God or Darwin's notion one still cannot escape that fact that man is significantly different from animals owing to his rational abilities. It's not just a minor difference, but rather a major difference. This is why man has certain standards of morality that you would never ascribe to animals. This is why it's okay for mankind to subject animals to his whims a bit as long as he's compassionate. The whole idea of evolution seems to show that we (or whoever objectively) value what has the greatest quality of life on an evolutionary scale. Therefore, man comes before monkeys and monkeys come before worms in order of importance. A rather simple concept. Rachels doesn't drive this point home convincingly enough but seems to continually harp upon the similarities of man and animals. Rachels is an advocate of moral individualism. This idea basically says that matters have to be evaluated individually to see if there is a relevant difference between them that would compel us to act a certain way. I think Rachels was trying to establish the concept of accepting this new morality of moral individualism over the older ideas of morality. However, I don't think he drives this point home well enough. There are some examples but not overwhelmingly crisp ones. Also he seems to regard Darwin as somewhat sacred. Obviously many objections are being raised to some of the Darwinian ideas contained in evolutionary theory as of today. This means in the mode of proper science we should tentatively accept theories that seem to be more true while reserving the right to change our minds in light of more solid evidence for something else. We shouldn't just bow down to Darwin because he somewhat originally published many of the ideas of our current frame of thought. Also, it is to be noted that this book seems to run through theoretical examples as if just for fun without getting to a clear point.

Comparable to Ruse's _Taking Darwin Seriously_, but written just before the high tide of the sociobiological rendering of ethical questions, this work cogently, though somewhat naively, attempts to assess the implications of Darwinism for morality and religion. Overconfidence in the mechanics of natural selection is the only word to describe the result of such efforts, given in every sense a 'bum steer' by the dogmatic mantras of Darwinian selectionism. Man could suffer hybris, take himself to be special, and certainly Darwinism is a slap to this disposition, but it does not follow that if we accept evolution, or the proposition that man morphs from the domain of animals, that we must renounce the deeper side of _homo sapiens_, a side truly visible in man, and man only, however latent or occasional early signs of this might be in the species cousins, the great apes. And this deeper side of man gives signs of being a potential that emerges, not as adaptation, but as a self-consciousness at first superfluous, and barely used, and seldom for purposes of survival. Perhaps that is a sign of an evolution we are unaware of. Here the other religion is the Buddhist, nor miracles here, only that potential that nature leaves alone, for man must 'evolve' it in freedom. Here Wallace himself became suspicious, and wondered how, as a more extreme selectionist than Darwin, one could account for this 'virtual man' behind the creature-hominid. Rachel's answer seems to be to simply eliminate the question through the prior given, which is not given at all, that natural selection is proven, when the example is the counterevidence! We should instead query the mysteries of time for deeper answers. One issue bedevils the debate, the so-called naturalistic fallacy. While it was certainly brilliant for G. Moore to pull the rug from under Spencer's ethical naturalism with his separation of ethics and nature, a strange contradiction arises in this tacit acknowledgement, it would seem, of the need for non-naturalistic explanations of values!! Surely, the trap is not in Moore's subtle argument, but in what he called it, the 'naturalistic' fallacy. This description was not present in Hume's first use of this argument, as he cleaved the 'is' from the 'ought' in his _Dialogues_. We may not derive the 'is' from the 'ought', but we cannot derive even the mere 'is' of man from string theory either! Let alone the 'ought'. The whole question rests on a quagmire of incomplete foundational physics and its tendency to suggest a given set of premises, themselves in motion. The question of reduction is altogether a dark pit, and we cannot assume the 'ought' has no emergent source in nature. The dilemma is that while the 'naturalistic' fallacy, so-called, may be indeed fallacious, it does not follow from its _name_ that nature cannot 'evolve' ethics in some other fashion that is a mystery to us. In fact, history gives us alternate suggestions. Indeed, the emergence of religions themselve

I had to read this book for a class in college. I must admit, I wasn't thrilled with the prospect. But once I started reading, I couldn't stop. Rachels explores Darwinism and its relation to morality; good book for animal rights, though a bit dry and obscure at times.

Rachels spends a good deal of time setting the intellectual and historical context in which Darwin's theory appears. He slowly but surely initiates the reader into the labyrinth of evolutionary theory with all the interesting characters such as Huxley and Wallace. The book is quite good, and lays out the argument of why one should look at non-human animals as of a different degree rather than of a different kind to human beings. He with Darwin's help answers the skeptics, religious dogmatists, and others on their own ground. The only problem with this book comes close to the end as Rachels presents his theory of moral individualism giving the reader a formula by which they can operate to treat animals with more respect. However, he does not explicate his theory thoroughly enough leaving it open to an enormous amount of criticism. The book can stand alone without the addition of such a theory. It is an excellent read for anyone pondering the questions of evolution, morality, and if we should change the way we view animals.

I read this a year and a half ago in Vicenza, Italy. It is an excellent introduction to Darwin and animal rights. Rachels makes you feel that he knows his history of whatever he writes about. His book on Euthanasia is also good.