Ends in Themselves?

Evolution, Aspiration, and the End of Progress

Humanity is the only species which constructs ethical theories to justify instincts it only partially understands. We praise compassion, denounce cruelty, and speak solemnly of dignity, as if natural selection had ever cared for such abstractions. The Kantian notion that humans are to be treated as ends in themselves is an evolutionary novelty, and certainly a fragile one.

Our moral ideals are extrapolations from traits that emerged under specific evolutionary pressures. They are neither grounded in the fabric of reality nor timeless truths. The very forces that shaped those traits may begin to select against them.

1. Natural Selection and the Moral Mind

Evolution does not select for some concept of 'virtue'. It selects for survival and reproduction in specific environments. Altruism, empathy, loyalty: these emerged because they increased the inclusive fitness of our ancestors. A mother’s bond with her child, a hunter’s willingness to share meat, a group’s punishment of defectors: these are behaviours with calculable payoffs.

What we now call “morality” is the post hoc rationalisation of these evolved heuristics, abstracted into timeless principles. But this abstraction is unstable. Our evolved psychology is deeply parochial: it tracks kinship, reciprocity, and group affiliation, not impartiality. That we now demand universal human rights is a pragmatic response to society-scaling - but always involves emotional hypocrisy.

2. The Cultural Mutation of Ethical Norms

With the rise of large-scale societies, local intuitions became inadequate. The evolving institutions of religion, law, and ideology scaled up social cooperation. The result was a new moral grammar: no longer “protect the tribe,” but “treat every individual as sacred.”

Genetic-cultural co-evolution struggled to keep up.

This is the core tension of the modern ethical project. We ask humans to behave in ways the environment of evolutionary adaptation never prepared them for: to pretend to care equally for strangers and kin; to suppress immediate gain for long-term rewards; to treat even enemies with fairness.

These ideals are maintained through institutions and narratives; when social problems remove the scaffolding, when the prescribed cortical inhibitions fail, ancestral drives reassert themselves in the guise of populism.

3. The Mirage of Ethical Progress

Enlightenment thinkers imagined moral progress as the natural fruit of abstract reason. Evolutionary biology suggests otherwise. There is no moral teleology. Selection pressures continue to operate behind the scenes.

Even intelligence, that presumed engine of ethical advancement, is under ambiguous selection. High intelligence correlates with reduced fertility in post-industrial societies: there are many more interesting choices for the smart in advanced societies than raising children. Meanwhile, traits like impulsivity, status-seeking and in-group signalling continue to thrive.

4. Designing the Future Human: A False Optimism

Some imagine that technology such as gene editing, AI tutors, neural implants will allow us to engineer our better selves. But better by what metric? Intelligence, empathy, conscientiousness? Or reproductive success, influence, and competitive advantage?

They are far from the same thing. A post-human future optimised for success under future selection regimes may not resemble today's ethical ideals. The current model of “good person” may be as maladaptive tomorrow as a contemplative monk would have been in the Pleistocene. 

5. The Human Condition, Remaindered

We are, for now, creatures with reflexive consciousness: able to evaluate ourselves, question our values and attempt to live as if they matter. 

The universe is silent. Evolution is indifferent. That we aspire to be more than animals is neither destiny nor delusion. It is simply what a certain kind of animal does when its drive for meaning runs out of control.