Hobbes Leviathan

When, for instance, we are told that Law (written large) "is the objectification of Truth;" or that "the principles underlying the development of Law are the same as those underlying the development of the human spirit;" or that "Law and Morality are identical and differ only formally;" we feel as little respect for these assertions as does Mephistopheles in Goethe's "Faust." We are aware that those who make such seemingly profound statements as these have expended much thought upon these questions. But they have taken a wrong path; and hence we see in these high-flown sentences mere attempts at unconscious generalization, based upon inadequate foundations and confused, moreover, by words of hypnotic power. In olden times they tried to give "Law" a divine origin; later they began to seek a metaphysical basis for it; now, however, we are able to study its anthropological origin. And, availing ourselves of the results obtained by the anthropological school, we take up the study of social customs, beginning with those of the primitive savages, and trace the origin and the development of laws at different epochs.

In this way we come to the conclusion already expressed on a preceding page--namely, that all laws have a two-fold origin, and in this very respect differ from those institutions established by custom which are generally recognized as the moral code of a given society. Law confirms and crystallizes these customs, but, while doing so, it takes advantage of this fact to establish (for the most part in a disguised form) the germs of slavery and class distinction, the authority of priest and warrior, serfdom and various other institutions, in the interest of the armed and would be ruling minority. In this way a yoke has imperceptibly been placed upon man, of which he could only rid himself by means of subsequent bloody revolutions. And this is the course of events down to the present moment--even in contemporary "labor legislation" which, along with "protection of labor," covertly introduces the idea of compulsory State arbitration in the case of strikes,1 a compulsory eight-hour day for the workingman (no less than eight hours), military exploitation of the railroads during strikes, legal sanction for the dispossession of peasants in Ireland, and so on. And this will continue to be so as long as one portion of society goes on framing laws for all society, and thereby strengthens the power of the State, which forms the chief support of Capitalism.

juozokas wrote:

If Kropotkin was wrong about that then doesn't this mean Darwin was also wrong?

No. Darwin said that evolution by natural selection occurred at the level of the differential survival of individuals. This is basically correct, and our understanding the level of selection has been strengthened by our understanding of genes.
Kropotkin, on the other hand, thought that natural selection occurred at the level of the species. But there is no feasible mechanism by which species selection could work. A trait which favours the species at the expense of the individual cannot spread through the population, since the individuals with it will have less offspring than their more 'selfish' relatives. (Ants, bees and wasps are a special case, because of their weird genetics). Co-operative traits can only arise if they benefit the individuals carrying them (or their close relatives {my bold toj}).

Anna wrote:

juozokas wrote:

If Kropotkin was wrong about that then doesn't this mean Darwin was also wrong?

No. Darwin said that evolution by natural selection occurred at the level of the differential survival of individuals. This is basically correct, and our understanding the level of selection has been strengthened by our understanding of genes.
Kropotkin, on the other hand, thought that natural selection occurred at the level of the species. But there is no feasible mechanism by which species selection could work. A trait which favours the species at the expense of the individual cannot spread through the population, since the individuals with it will have less offspring than their more 'selfish' relatives. (Ants, bees and wasps are a special case, because of their weird genetics). Co-operative traits can only arise if they benefit the individuals carrying them (or their close relatives {my bold toj}).

Kind of an important point, there, which makes ants, bees and wasps less of a special case. In the long term, individuals die, but genes survive, and as far as a gene is concerned, it doesn't matter whether an individual promulgates itself or sacrifices itself to help others containing that gene promulgate instead.

--- Edited to remove ambiguous pronoun toj

revol68 wrote:

Quote:

Similarly, it would be better for the species if chimpanzees didn't raid and kill rival troops, but they do.

What type of chimpanzee's, Bonobo's don't and there is alot of discussion and debate about what leads to common chimps raiding and killing other troops, it certainly can't be explained away as some sort of simple evolved instinct.

Common chimps, yes. It's mainly for territory, and sometimes for mates.

So Anna with a (arguably) evolved trait like raiding and killing for territory that benefits the group but is detrimental to the species, what is the implication there? That trait will continue to evolve among those sections of the species that practice it until there is an entire species of rapist cannibal monkeys?

juozokas wrote:

So Anna with a (arguably) evolved trait like raiding and killing for territory that benefits the group but is detrimental to the species, what is the implication there? That trait will continue to evolve among those sections of the species that practice it until there is an entire species of rapist cannibal monkeys?

eh you can't make a complex interdependent behaviour like raiding and killing for territory into a simple evolved trait (as if there is a gene or series of genes for it), afterall troops can vary greatly in size, they clearly have the ability to form alliances as much as fight.