Disclaimer: I am not saying that I agree with everything
I’m saying, it’s just kind of interesting to think about.

“…as love, sympathy and self-command become strengthened by habit, and as the power of reasoning becomes clearer, so that man can value justly the judgments of his fellows, he will feel himself impelled, apart from any transitory pleasure or pain, to certain lines of conduct.” -Darwin, The Origin of the Moral Sense

The idea of evolution of the mind and the capacity of a species to reason, think in depth, and reflect is a very interesting concept to me. When I read about the evolution of consciousness and Darwin’s theory that species not only physically evolve, but mentally evolve as well, I began to think of many other theories which correlate with this one. Darwin would say that our current morals, and the ways which are considered “right”
to live are all but results of natural selection--evolution. We form states and governments in order to preserve our species, to clean up the “mess” of what we consider unorganized and uncivilized ways of living. John Locke wrote about the “state of nature” which he called a state of war--when individuals are ready to harm or kill those who threaten them in some way. He says that in order to organize a group of individuals, states must be formed and people must give up their natural rights to an authority figure, who will punish those who break the “laws”. This theory can run parallel to Darwin’s theory of the evolution of consciousness. A certain trait in an individual which allows for better
survival, whether it be physical or mental, may be slowly carried on through generations to create organic beings which are better fit to survive in their given environments. Take our idea of the cave man, the first hominids--in my understanding of them, they were less
reasonable, or at least it would appear to be so. Over time, tools began being used, new inventions were created, and reason in general seemed to heighten. What would it be like if a current human being were to be born into a prehistoric world? Would they be more reasonable than their peers? Or would they not know the difference? We definitely write things down, we have ways of remembering and teaching newer generations about the world. Are our ways of thinking and reasoning slowly encoded in our genetic codes? Will there be someday a crescendo of progress, of knowledge? It seems that as we are creating more and more technology faster and faster--the more technology and knowledge we have, the faster we discover, create. Is this a new form of evolution?
Also, Nietzsche says that man has become tame. In reference to the state of nature, where man was wild, cruel (not that we ever stopped), less reflective, it
seems that Nietzsche finds beauty and magic. When man is trapped within the bounds of society, he has nowhere to go but inside his head. Nietzsche thinks that our current
notion of morality is a reversal of how things really should be. But that’s a whole other story…
It is also interesting to think about the concept of Collective memory--there is a pool of memories/consciousness that humans can sometimes tap into.
For example, a group of people were given a crossword puzzle that had been published the same day. Another group of people were given a crossword puzzle which was a week old--a puzzle which had been solved thousands of times over by other humans. The second group of people finished the older crossword puzzle remarkably faster than the first group, though they had never before seen the puzzle. It’s like, once there is an idea out there, people are able to tap into some weird source where they collect. “Waking Life” talks about this a lot. I don’t know if I necessarily believe this, but its weird, right?
Returning to Darwin’s theory that morality and ethics are a result of evolution, he gives further evidence of man descending from animal in his “The Origin of the Moral Sense.” He talks about the social community of organic beings, including man. A social community arises out of social instinct mixed with sympathy (or love), he argues. He refers to Kant’s philosophy of personality. Kant writes,

“Two things fill my mind…the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me…I see them before me, and I associate them directly with the consciousness of my own existence. The former begins from the place I occupy in the external world of sense, and it broadens the connection in which I stand into an unbound magnitude of worlds beyond worlds and systems of systems and into the limitless times of their periodic motion, their beginning and continuance. The latter begins from my invisible self, my personality, and exhibits me in a world which has true infinity but which is comprehensible only to the understanding—a world with which I recognize myself as existing in a universal and necessary connection…” (Kant, The Noble Descent of Duty).

(I know it was a long quote, but I thought it was so beautiful)

Kant believes that we should never treat others as ends in themselves—“I will not in my own person violate the dignity of humanity.”

With this, Darwin writes about how animals, like humans, are very concerned with their families and friends—their social community. In apes we see extreme similarities to our own socially acceptable ways of living, but even in other animals, the cause to better community is highly visible. Darwin writes about the honey bee and their conditions, and if, in the extreme case that man were raised under their same conditions, “there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” This is the pattern of ethics for the bee—it is different than that of man, but it is still “the right way to live”—stemming out of their survival of the fittest. Social animals, man included, have learned that in helping each other they are actually helping themselves and their species on a whole. Darwin continues, “The feeling of pleasure from society is probably an extension of the parental or filial affections, since the social instincts seemed to be developed by the young remaining for a long time with their parents; and this extension may be attributed in part to habit; but chiefly to natural selection.”

Darwin, I feel is working in a way synonymous with Kant’s idea of utilitarianism—and we can use his works to add animals into the mix of “humanity” or morality. Peter Singer actually is responsible for extending utilitarianist ideals to animals, which I’m sure we’ll be reading about at some point.