Is biological determinism somehow unethical?

[seriously disabled]

In Richard Dawkins's book "The selfish gene" it seems like Dawkins is adhering to some form of biological determinism.

 

The book attracted great criticism. Many people critizied his book and said that Dawkins' book reflects profound ignorance of how human culture works. They say that reductionist determinism of any kind, whether cultural or biological, is simply unethical and wrong.

 

The critics also say that human culture is not biological. They say that biological determinism is scientifically incorrect in human social relations. They also say that biological determinism leads to racism and eugenics. They further claim that attempts to import biological theories into sociology and cultural anthropology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation.

 

 

Now from a ethical or moral point of view, do you agree with the critics that Dawkin's biological determinism is unethical?

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

Edited March 31, 2012 by seriously disabled

[immortal]

If you determine the underlying causes for altruism then it is a fact that most of the behaviors in humans are determined by genes and the motives are inherently selfish even though the individuals themselves displaying benevolent behavior are not aware of that which implies that altruism is an illusion.

 

I personally am skeptical about the underlying causes for conscious thinking and hence I think Real altruism in humans do exist.

[randomc]

Seems like any definition of altruism first requires an absolute determination of self, i.e it must be assumed that the self is capable of being determined without variation so that the concept of altruism means anything.

 

All organisms with agency (motor, reproductive, whatever) must determine self in order that agency can be advantageous in terms of natural selection, so it seems like self must be far more fundamental in biology in general than is human conscious awareness of self.

 

But even if biologically determined self must exist in all creatures that possess agency, surely how that determination is made can't be assumed to be uniform across all species.

 

I can't think of any reason why the self in social species should be limited to an individual organism; why couldn't a biological determination of self be extended to include kin or wider groups?

 

So then altruism is redundant as a concept because it relies on a definition of self that is limited to the individual.

 

An absolute definition of self in which self is reduced to such a precise unit of self-hood seems wrong to me - For e.g., myself now, myself tommorow, myself in ten years - seem to be continuous concepts. They are not an extension of some unit that self-hood can be reduced to, rather self-hood is the product of all of them.

 

Likewise; me, my family, my friends, my community - it seems very plausible to reduce 'self' to the individual as the unit of self-hood, but i don't see that a biologically determined concept of self in social species would necessarily be that inflexible.

 

So is it possible tha rather than altruism, we've a variable determination self-hood?

Edited March 31, 2012 by randomc

[the asinine cretin]

In Richard Dawkins's book "The selfish gene" it seems like Dawkins is adhering to some form of biological determinism.

 

The book attracted great criticism. Many people critizied his book and said that Dawkins' book reflects profound ignorance of how human culture works. They say that reductionist determinism of any kind, whether cultural or biological, is simply unethical and wrong.

 

The critics also say that human culture is not biological. They say that biological determinism is scientifically incorrect in human social relations. They also say that biological determinism leads to racism and eugenics. They further claim that attempts to import biological theories into sociology and cultural anthropology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation.

 

 

Now from a ethical or moral point of view, do you agree with the critics that Dawkin's biological determinism is unethical?

 

http://rationalwiki....cal_determinism

Is biological determinism true? To me that's the more valid question. Any ethical implications and interpretations would be secondary at best. Basing an ethics on the idea of biological determinism sounds like pretty poor philosophy. The idea of biological determinism strikes me as metaphysical rather than properly scientific. The data and insight of science are always important, but I think these are fundamentally philosophical and sociological issues. Social Darwinism and racism were/are not actually based on science. I think they're ideological and only co-opt science in a superficial sense - I might say they parody science. I'm thinking of such things as Lysenkoism and Creation Science as analogies.

[questionposter]

In Richard Dawkins's book "The selfish gene" it seems like Dawkins is adhering to some form of biological determinism.

 

The book attracted great criticism. Many people critizied his book and said that Dawkins' book reflects profound ignorance of how human culture works. They say that reductionist determinism of any kind, whether cultural or biological, is simply unethical and wrong.

 

The critics also say that human culture is not biological. They say that biological determinism is scientifically incorrect in human social relations. They also say that biological determinism leads to racism and eugenics. They further claim that attempts to import biological theories into sociology and cultural anthropology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation.

 

 

Now from a ethical or moral point of view, do you agree with the critics that Dawkin's biological determinism is unethical?

 

http://rationalwiki....cal_determinism

 

I don't know exactly what Dawkin's get's from that theory itself, but it's not really inaccurate. There isn't really determinism as far as science shows, but more of probability and I suppose a lack of a reason for things to work any other way. Many things even in culture are influenced by biological responses, but I would hardly say we've simplified it enough to even approach calling it determinism, and I'm guessing that Richard being credited with being as smart as he is doesn't think think that either. It's probably more of a problem many people's images that things don't actually work in such seemingly cruel ways, but really, if there's nothing stopping anything form working via the process of evolution, then it will happen. Evolution is kind of like a default. I'm sure Richard knows that molecules can't think or be conscious and therefore cannot be selfish or posses any sort of mentality.

Edited March 31, 2012 by questionposter

[seriously disabled]

Determinism or even yet fatalism, whether biological, chemical or physical (based on physics) is quite absurd in my opinion because it reduces people to unthinking unfeeling machines yet evidence shows that we are more than just machines. We are conscious thinking and feeling beings who possess some sort of sentience. Such a pessimistic view of the world can lead someone to defeatism and spiritual death.

 

Please see

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_death

 

That is why biological or physical determinism is simply wrong in my opinion, at least for an ethical point of view.

Edited April 10, 2012 by seriously disabled

[Ophiolite]

That is why biological or physical determinism is simply wrong in my opinion, at least for an ethical point of view.

So you arrive at your conclusion based not on evidence, but upon likes and dislikes. That is not scientific. I would also argue that it is unethical.

[juanrga]

In Richard Dawkins's book "The selfish gene" it seems like Dawkins is adhering to some form of biological determinism.

 

The book attracted great criticism. Many people critizied his book and said that Dawkins' book reflects profound ignorance of how human culture works. They say that reductionist determinism of any kind, whether cultural or biological, is simply unethical and wrong.

 

The critics also say that human culture is not biological. They say that biological determinism is scientifically incorrect in human social relations. They also say that biological determinism leads to racism and eugenics. They further claim that attempts to import biological theories into sociology and cultural anthropology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation.

 

 

Now from a ethical or moral point of view, do you agree with the critics that Dawkin's biological determinism is unethical?

 

http://rationalwiki....cal_determinism

 

Biological determinism can be in disagreement with ethics, but the main problem is that determinism (biological, physical or other) is an outdated philosophical idea that ignores recent scientific developments: non-deterministic chaos, emergence...

[questionposter]

I don't actually understand what's "unethical" about it, it doesn't have to "reduce people to machines" of any sort, it just means everything is pre-determined.