[AleoMagus]

The first excerpt that you cite has it's greatest impact when considering the purely biological examples such as the small pox vaccinations. And this again falls into David Hume's 'is'/'ought' fallacy. Just because nature is a certain way, that is no basis for concluding that that it ought to be that way. Modern geneticists will redily concede this. Should we not have saved millions from smallpox? In 19th century fashion, Darwin speaks of the evils commited in the aid to the weak or sick, but is this really an evil, or simply counter productive to the continued evolution of human beings. Morality does not find it's basis in how nature IS, it finds it's basis in what we see (know?) as the right thing to do.

Perhaps I have confused Darwin with the many naturalists, scientists and geneticists that have followed in his research. It would seem (to my surprise) that Darwin himself could occasionally ponder the meaning of his theories beyond the biological. Darwin was, however, a moral man who did not push these ideas in the rigourous way that he did the purely naturalistic side of his writings. Your second excerpt indicates this and illustrates the way in which our sympathy is a byproduct of evolutionary processes. That excerpt does not indicate at all that GWB's economic success is a matter of his own superior genetics, but rather that the sympathy and help he received arises from traits which propogate and further our species - namely, our goodwill towards our kin, and fellow man (and I suspect that includes the weak and poor). Daddy Bush wants his own genes to advance and succeed so he gives what he can in the way of money and opportunity to his offspring. I would contend that the development of emotion and a heightened sense of love and empathy has been a major evolutionary step which has benefited and better enabled the human race to survive. It is natural that we would want the biggest recipients of our own aid to be our own kin, but this does not imply they are in the greatest need of it nor that they will benefit most from it.

You said it yourself, or rather, Darwin did:

It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the social instincts.

All that said however, we should be cautious about trying to tie our social values with what we see or conclude from the state of nature for the very reasons I have already stated. Just because nature IS a certain way, that does not imply it OUGHT to be that way.

Regards,
Brad S