Earlier, it was mentioned that the two theories converge in their relevance to human societies. But a crucial difference exists between the two. While Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection emerged from an empirical study of the natural world, Mill’s principle of Utilitarianism is founded upon moral considerations of human existence. In other words, Natural Selection is a purely an amoral scientific principle and applicable to all living creatures, whereas Utilitarianism was strictly meant for human beings and their social organization. In the words of Richard Dawkins, the famous Cambridge biologist, biological evolution is a ruthlessly efficient process – one without any higher ‘noble’ purpose. In Darwin’s own words, “natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” (Charles Darwin, 1859) But Utilitarianism aspires to create a public policy framework which would fetch beneficial results to the human species as a whole. For instance, in Mill’s own words,
“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain….A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (John Stuart Mill, 1861)
Herein lays the fundamental difference between Darwin and Mill. While natural selection works for the benefit of the individual member of a species (human or otherwise), Utilitarianism places the interests of the individual human subordinate to the well being of the larger community. In the Origin of Species, Darwin does talk about Natural Selection at the group level – the evidence for which is seen in clan rivalries within species – but group selection works only insofar as it ultimately benefits the individual members of the group. Hence, it is the individual organism that is at the centre of the Darwinian view of the natural world. Modern urban societies, with unprecedented interaction between members of different ethnicities, religions and social class has made it mandatory to form universally accepted ethical codes of conduct. Only Mill’s Utilitarianism attempts to solve this imperative, whereas Darwin’s Natural Selection is completely divorced from such immediate and practical considerations. To this extent, John Stuart Mill’s can be said to help build civil societies of the future, while Darwin’s body of work only throws light on the natural history of life on earth.
Seen from the perspective of modern political science, Utilitarianism is decidedly more helpful in resolving certain issues in politics and economics. Seen in light of the present economic crisis across the world, there seem to be little merit in free market capitalism and individualism. Utilitarianism, which has many similarities with Socialism and Communism, is especially useful in offering viable solutions. In contrast, Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection had been misinterpreted by some, which has resulted in conceptions such as ‘Social Darwinism’, ‘Corporate Darwinism’ and ‘Eugenics’. While Social Darwinism is based on a crude interpretation of ‘survival of the fittest’, Eugenics is genetic and social engineering of the most inhumane kind. Irrespective of Darwin’s unequivocal view on the superior station of human beings among other species, people in power have carried out brutal acts of genocide in the twentieth century, all in the name of Darwin. To his credit, Darwin had maintained that he was against such tendencies, as is evident from the following passage:
“Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these exalted powers—Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.” (Charles Darwin, 1871)
Finally, Darwin deduces his theory as he works his way from bottom up. Mill, on the other hand, adopts a top down approach. He first states his principle and later studies its implications on human societies. Natural Selection is a proposed ‘explanation’ for how things work in the natural world, whereas Mill’s principle argues how societies ‘should’ ideally be. This brings us back to the difference mentioned earlier about amoral and moral qualities of the two theories. Furthermore, digressing from a purely scientific approach to evolution, Darwin does reveal a metaphysical aspect to human evolution when he said “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved” (Charles Darwin, 1859). In a similar digression from his idealized conception of human societies, John Stuart Mill concedes that “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.” (John Stuart Mill, 1861)
Works Cited:
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1419192213, 9781419192210
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Published by Signet Classic, 2003, ISBN 0451529065, 9780451529060