KOESTLER AS SYSTEM·MAKER
539
mastery with which the organism handles its biological problems. It seems
to me, however, that ethics cannot live and breathe in this straightjacket.
Ethics is primarily concerned with questions of right and wrong,
with what is to be approved and disapproved. Now, to be sure, ethics
may ask such questions concerning society as a whole as well as con–
cerning the individual; however, no such question could be asked mean–
ingfully unless we had some independent standard for judging "right–
ness." Koestler's standard, the super-organism, does not permit such
judgments. Let us agree for a moment that the super-organism is indeed
the grand
denouement
of the evolutionary drama. Does the fact that
evolution points in this direction determine what we are to consider as
ethically good? Are we to adopt evolutionary necessity, "that which
represents the higher stage in evolution," as the definition of "good"?
I need not stress how pernicious such a step would be. We simply
cannot hand over our conscience to the supposed laws of evolution. Cer–
tainly nobody knows better than Koestler what crimes man is capable
of committing if he lulls his conscience by the assurance that he is the
instrument of Providence or of Evolution. Koestler's evolutionary ethics
is not meant to further or condone such monstrosities, but I do main–
tain that if we want to avoid these consequences, we must have an
ethical standard which is not stated in terms of position in the evolu–
tionary series: we need a concept of "better" which is independent of
the concept of "later."
What is most striking about Koestler's book is that it is so buoyant
and confident on the surface and so defeatist deep inside. He piles one
physiological analysis upon the other, as if to say what a brave new
world this is-science will crack the secret and then we shall have the
key to everything. But the real message is Nietzsche's: mankind as it is,
with its uncertainties, its hesitations, its dichotomies, its imperfect truths
and imperfect lies, is good for the dustheap. Something better and bigger
must corne: a Superman or super-society. This is what I would call an
anti-humanist attitude.
In his publicistic writings, Koestler fought many a battle for human–
ism, and I am sure he conceived this book essentially as a basic contri–
bution to the humanist cause. As it turned out, however, the book be–
came a humanistic document only in its more superficial parts. In its
decisive aspects, it shows the full impact of the de-humanizing trend
of our era.
Paul Ke(skemeti
