From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 13:01:05 MST
Max M wrote:
> 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
Like you I also find Dawkin's view of "the selfish gene" very credible.
In fact I consider the reading of his book by the same name to be an
important milestone in the development of my world-view. Prior to
reading Dawkins I considered questions of morality and ethics to be
matters reserved only for theology and philosophy. I now understand most
ideas from religion and philosophy to be at least partially the products
of genetics.
> So genetically speaking you are at break-even if you save 2 of
> your own children, even if it cost you your life.
This is interesting, given that the average family has roughly 2.4
children, at least here in the west. Perhaps it's no coincidence.
> 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.
I think we need only look around us to see the evidence that genetics
must play a major role in determining our morality. It's quite obvious
that we tend first to identify with and help our closest of kin. After
their needs are met we then begin to hear the much less strident
evolutionary voice that urges us to help other less closely related
humans.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:17 MST