Evolutionary ethic and embryonic stem‐cell research

Ethics of embryonic stem cell technology: science versus philosophy

“…Nearly 10 years ago, in his groundbreaking book on the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals, Frans de Waal wrote that ‘We seem to be reaching a point at which science can wrest morality from the hands of philosophers’ (p. 218) 9 . This turning point has been reached 4–7 .…”

“…Last, but more importantly, Cregan's claim that the ‘utilitarian case’ presented by the pro‐therapeutic cloning ethicists ‘is not a strong ethical argument in itself’ 1 reveals her inability to realize that authentically moral policies are utilitarian virtually by definition. Indeed, morality arose as a socially advantageous biological product of evolution 4,5 and continued to be socially utilitarian for millions of years because it was essentially aimed at ensuring the survival of the small groups that characterized humankind for the 99% of its evolution 6,7 . Founded as they were in its remaining 1%, all religions and philosophies are pathetic in their attempts to impose invented ‘moral’ principles which, besides being often mutually incompatible, frequently emerge to be patently at odds with the biological moral imperatives that enabled our species to survive for millions of years 6,7 .…”

“…Indeed, morality arose as a socially advantageous biological product of evolution 4,5 and continued to be socially utilitarian for millions of years because it was essentially aimed at ensuring the survival of the small groups that characterized humankind for the 99% of its evolution 6,7 . Founded as they were in its remaining 1%, all religions and philosophies are pathetic in their attempts to impose invented ‘moral’ principles which, besides being often mutually incompatible, frequently emerge to be patently at odds with the biological moral imperatives that enabled our species to survive for millions of years 6,7 . As a consequence of their shared reluctance to admit that true morality must be socially utilitarian, many theologians and philosophers resort to what has rightly been defined the ‘empty rhetoric of invoking resonant principles with no conceivable or coherent application’ 8 .…”

“…As a consequence of their shared reluctance to admit that true morality must be socially utilitarian, many theologians and philosophers resort to what has rightly been defined the ‘empty rhetoric of invoking resonant principles with no conceivable or coherent application’ 8 . These vacuous principles almost invariably prove to be intrinsically immoral, because they would cause the extinction of small communities 6,7 , similar to the ancestral ones, in which morality originated evolutionarily.…”

Evolutionary morality and public health

“…The morality of humans and other primates originated millions of years ago as a set of socially beneficial behaviours that have been produced and conserved by evolution because of their selective advantages 4,5 . Bearing in mind that social groups, for the 99% of humankind's evolution, consisted of a few tens of members living in harshly savage environments that were dangerous for lonely individuals, it is clear that socially beneficial moral traits evolved genetically as an excellent evolutionary strategy for enhancing the chances of survival of those small communities 5 .…”