From: Max M (maxmcorp@worldonline.dk)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 12:03:56 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> Ayn Rand proposed the drowning man analogy. In that analogy most of
> us would risk much more to save our loved ones than a stranger. However,
> even the coldest of us would exerts ourselves to at least throw a drowning
> stranger a rope or a life preserver.
Richard Dawkins has a very plaussible explanations for this. It is a
question about what risk your genes should expose themself to to save
themself :-s
Your parents and your children all shares 50% of your genes each.
Your siblings shares 25% of your genes. Cousins, nephews and nieces all
share 12.5%
Those genes that tends to survive, are those that takes best care of
themself.
So genetically speaking you are at break-even if you save 2 of your own
children, even if it cost you your life.
If you save 3 children, 5 brothers or 9 cousins your genes are still
ahead even if it costs you your life. More of your genes will survive
this way.
Genes that would make you act this way would thus have a better chance
of survival.
I find it highly likely that this theory is right. But I find it
extremely difficult to make any kind of moral system based on this. Just
like survival of the fittest make for a poor moral system so does this.
We can certainly get inspiration and ideas from many parts of nature,
but we must remember not to be fatalistic about it.
Or elkse we would be just as well of making a moral system based on the
movement of a pair of planets in orbit :-/
regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:17 MST