By William Markiewicz
If empathy is high on the evolutionary scale, then why is Darwinism our principal of survival?
Darwinism doesn't give much consideration to pity which it confounds with weakness. Empathy, on the other hand, freely offers good wishes, sometimes even at its own expense. So, what is the result of this mixture of good and bad that brings nothing but complication -- unless complication itself can trigger something good? Can the conflict of "good" and "bad" be better than Darwinian selection of only those that are "good for survival"? Empathy is inclined to paddle in chaos while the Darwinian ideology tends to eliminate chaos to the advantage of Darwinian "good". The danger of Darwinism is in oversimplification. The danger of empathy is to give uncontrolled opportunity to the not-so-good ones.
Perhaps local self-defence by determined individuals may constitute a mini-Darwinian defence against rampant freedom of empathy which could turn wrong. But this runs the risk that dominant Darwinism could return through the "back door." Perhaps a partial solution (because a total one doesn't exist) would be a cycle of opposed solutions. The sum of those solutions would express a solution based on compromises.Back to the index of the Vagabond