The Solitary Self: Darwin And The Selfish Gene

In this passage, philosopher Mary Midgley challenges the idea that human motivation is solely driven by self-interest, as proposed by the "selfish gene" theory in neo-Darwinian thought. She argues that this view is oversimplified and does not accurately reflect human psychology. Midgley also suggests that this reductionist perspective is not derived from Darwin's original writings, but rather from a broader tradition of Enlightenment thinking. She points out that the "selfish gene" hypothesis is a cultural construct and not seen in nature. Instead, she emphasizes the importance of human connections and interactions, as well as our role as a small part of complex ecosystems. Midgley ultimately argues that striving for complete independence is not a realistic goal for humans.

Renowned philosopher Mary Midgley explores the nature of our moral constitution to challenge the view that reduces human motivation to self-interest. Midgley argues cogently and convincingly that simple, one-sided accounts of human motives, such as the 'selfish gene' tendency in recent neo-Darwinian thought, may be illuminating but are always unrealistic. Such neatness, she shows, cannot be imposed on human psychology. She returns to Darwin's original writings to show how the reductive individualism which is now presented as Darwinism does not derive from Darwin but from a wider, Hobbesian tradition in Enlightenment thinking. She reveals the selfish gene hypothesis as a cultural accretion that is just not seen in nature. Heroic independence is not a realistic aim for Homo sapiens. We are, as Darwin saw, earthly organisms, framed to interact constantly with one another and with the complex ecosystems of which we are a tiny part. For us, bonds are not just restraints but also lifelines.