When the Woke Cultural Revolution reached a local maximum last summer – around the time that Thomas Jefferson was defenestrated – I wrote a piece for RT expressing my concern that “even Charles Darwin might not be safe”. Although Darwin has traditionally been considered something of a hero on the left (due to the religious right’s evolution-denialism) his writings about sex and race differences are highly “problematic” by today’s standards. For example, he observed that women are “intellectually inferior” to men, and noted that races differ “partly in their intellectual faculties”.
I am wondering if maybe we should avoid defending Darwin on moral grounds at all. If we begin saying that he was actually pretty good for his time, then maybe we have went into the framework created by the woke egalitarians. Those who praise Darwin do so for intellectual achievement and influence. Those who attack Darwin do so for his seemingly racist or sexist sentiments. Is the truth of the sentiments relevant, I wonder? They seem to want to destroy his intellectual legacy or ideas in doing so. However, respect for his intellectual achievements should not be predicated on his moral worth. At the same time, I think it is admirable to defend someone if they are being morally attacked. I feel mixed on this issue.
If someone said "Noah Carl is a horrible person" when I mention that I read an interesting idea on his Substack. I would first say "Regardless of Noah as a person, this article is still very interesting" but I am also inclined to defend someone who I respect. I would want to say "Also, Noah Carl is not a bad person" But when doing this, the whole debate now shifts to the character of Noah Carl rather than the central point. Since it is so hard to stand by as people one respects or oneself is attacked on moral grounds, the spiral into moral disagreements from empirical disagreements is pervasive because the left attributes motive incorrectly frequently and the right feels the need to defend themselves.
I made this point previously. This terms "racist" and "sexist" just means does not conform to the progressive view on racial and sex issues. It is merely a weapon of shame. "Charles Darwin is racist" is not coherent enough of a statement. It is laden with the idea that Charles Darwin is bad and with the idea that he is wrong. Racist seems to have this implicit meaning making it useful. Has an egalitarian ever said "Yes, it's racist but it's true" or "Yes, it's racist but it's good"? Those who face this accusation never want to say "Yes, I'm correct and racist" or "Yes, It's a racist policy but it's good"
Good piece!
I am wondering if maybe we should avoid defending Darwin on moral grounds at all. If we begin saying that he was actually pretty good for his time, then maybe we have went into the framework created by the woke egalitarians. Those who praise Darwin do so for intellectual achievement and influence. Those who attack Darwin do so for his seemingly racist or sexist sentiments. Is the truth of the sentiments relevant, I wonder? They seem to want to destroy his intellectual legacy or ideas in doing so. However, respect for his intellectual achievements should not be predicated on his moral worth. At the same time, I think it is admirable to defend someone if they are being morally attacked. I feel mixed on this issue.
If someone said "Noah Carl is a horrible person" when I mention that I read an interesting idea on his Substack. I would first say "Regardless of Noah as a person, this article is still very interesting" but I am also inclined to defend someone who I respect. I would want to say "Also, Noah Carl is not a bad person" But when doing this, the whole debate now shifts to the character of Noah Carl rather than the central point. Since it is so hard to stand by as people one respects or oneself is attacked on moral grounds, the spiral into moral disagreements from empirical disagreements is pervasive because the left attributes motive incorrectly frequently and the right feels the need to defend themselves.
I made this point previously. This terms "racist" and "sexist" just means does not conform to the progressive view on racial and sex issues. It is merely a weapon of shame. "Charles Darwin is racist" is not coherent enough of a statement. It is laden with the idea that Charles Darwin is bad and with the idea that he is wrong. Racist seems to have this implicit meaning making it useful. Has an egalitarian ever said "Yes, it's racist but it's true" or "Yes, it's racist but it's good"? Those who face this accusation never want to say "Yes, I'm correct and racist" or "Yes, It's a racist policy but it's good"