178 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
178 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
### #### ### ### ### ####
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
### ### ### ### ###
|
|
### ### ##### ### ###
|
|
########## ### ### ##########
|
|
### ###
|
|
### ###
|
|
|
|
Underground eXperts United
|
|
|
|
Presents...
|
|
|
|
####### ## ## ####### # # ## ## ####### #######
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ## ##
|
|
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### #######
|
|
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ##
|
|
## ## ####### ####### # # ## ####### #######
|
|
|
|
[ Genetic Moralism ] [ By The GNN ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
____________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GENETIC MORALISM
|
|
by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu
|
|
|
|
Contemporary studies of the inner part of nature, the genes and their codes
|
|
(DNA), and their implications for our lives, have during the 20th century
|
|
been very 'successful' in terms of 'understanding' the world. We are now
|
|
able to modify certain codes so that vegetables may grow under harsh
|
|
conditions, cows produce more milk and meat, humans avoid certain hereditary
|
|
diseases, to mention a few rocks on the pile of progress. Out of these
|
|
scientific fireworks, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that 'everything'
|
|
around us has more or less something to do with genes.
|
|
Some people have done this jump. An old trend that constantly appears in
|
|
a new costume is to mix theories of genes and evolution with normative moral
|
|
systems. Faithful readers of uXu are probably well aware of the conclusions
|
|
put forward by Mr. Leon Felkins in some of his essays. His and his mentors'
|
|
(especially Richard Dawkins) opinions concerning the human geist are well-
|
|
familiar: Those moral theories that aim to make humanity more 'altruistic'
|
|
(as opposed to 'egoistic') are deemed to fail since - and here follows the
|
|
heavy argument - studies of the genes (and the evolution in general) has
|
|
_scientifically proved_ that man is a 'natural biological egoist'. Man is in
|
|
'reality' (a central term in this context) completely controlled by her
|
|
genes, an egoistic selfish elitist who only aims for personal survival, and
|
|
the avoidance of death as a terminal state by refining and spreading the
|
|
genetic code to further generations. The conclusion to be drawn out of this,
|
|
it is said, is that it is hard (and even dangerous to the well-being of the
|
|
world) to follow moral systems that run counter with this 'natural egoism'.
|
|
If altruism is good or bad is not really a problem for the discussion I
|
|
am about to enter in this text. The question I am interested in is more
|
|
fundamental: is it really 'scientifically proven' that man is an egoist? Or
|
|
is the term 'scientific' used in these discussions nothing more than a
|
|
rhetorical tool, empty of content?
|
|
|
|
What makes a theory 'scientific'? Several suggestions are available, not all
|
|
of them compatible with each other. But a trivial feature they all share is
|
|
that such a theory is partly constituted by a _criterion of falsifiability_;
|
|
it must be possible to show that the theory to be false with the help of
|
|
certain controlled experiments, tests. Prima facie, this might sound quite
|
|
strange. After all, if a theory cannot be shown to be false, does this not
|
|
show that it is true? Certainly. But this is something that is the case
|
|
_after_ the tests in question have been performed. _Prior_ to the tests
|
|
being conducted, the theory must be so constructed that it can be shown to
|
|
be false. If a theory is formulated in a way that it is impossible to
|
|
falsify it _under any condition_, the theory is not scientific. It is then
|
|
more of a groundless speculation which belong to the area of metaphysics.
|
|
"God initialised the Big Bang", "without knowing about it, all people
|
|
want to commit suicide", or "there is an invisible rhino outside space and
|
|
time under my desk" are all examples of theories which cannot be made false
|
|
with empirical investigations. They always 'win', no matter what we say and
|
|
see. We cannot test the hypotheses, because they are so constituted
|
|
(formulated) that they are impossible to test. Even if all people around the
|
|
world said that they were not interesting in killing themselves, the
|
|
suicide-theory wins anyway, because of the addition of "without knowing
|
|
about it". The invisible rhino cannot be discovered, since scientific
|
|
instruments are not designed to observe objects which are said to exist
|
|
outside time and space. And so on.
|
|
Gene-moralists seldom hesitates to claim that their theories of 'natural
|
|
egoism' are supported by scientific observations. So, if these moralists are
|
|
not conceptually confused on what the very term 'science' implies, we must
|
|
accept that their theories are well-grounded facts, the results of careful
|
|
empirical investigations (with positive answers regarding their thesis).
|
|
Well then, how does these observations look? In the literature around
|
|
genetic-ego-moralism, we find no obvious answers. It seems like the writers
|
|
presupposes that the reader has studied the scientific experiments that
|
|
supports the conclusion in question. How certain genes have an indisputable
|
|
influence on how we behave when it comes to alcoholism, looks and resistance
|
|
to low temperatures, is clearly documented. But the claimed 'egoism' is not
|
|
really tested. The writers mostly speak about how it was billions of years
|
|
ago, when Earth was habituated by self-copying organisms; and conclude that
|
|
we, today, have the same non-intentional intention of self-preservation as
|
|
those organisms, with the exception of being of a slightly more complicated
|
|
structure.
|
|
Nothing however stops us from performing the observations necessary
|
|
ourselves, using the literature of gene-moralism as a complement. We need no
|
|
technically advanced equipment for succeeding with this task. After all, we
|
|
are not really interested in if the genes 'themselves' are egoists (as it
|
|
would be equally uninteresting, and worthless, to study the atomic structure
|
|
of the brain to find out if we have a free will) but merely if the genes
|
|
_makes us_ behave egoistic, without exceptions. Let us therefore, in a true
|
|
scientific manner, perform some simple observations of the world, and its
|
|
human inhabitants.
|
|
Unfortunately, we quickly discover that the hypothesis seems to be false
|
|
(or at least hard to prove). All around us, we see how people act like they
|
|
were altruists. They open doors for others, they jump into dark waters to
|
|
save drowning strangers, they sign up as military soldiers even though they
|
|
know this will eventually lead them to a painful death. Actually, we will
|
|
find so many exceptions (which a theory of this kind cannot afford) that we
|
|
ought to conclude that the hypothesis is false.
|
|
By now, the hard-core gene-moralists begin to speak. They claim that have
|
|
not been careful enough in our observations. We have not understood the
|
|
simple fact that we all are egoists, _but naturally acts unselfish because
|
|
it in the end will favour our selfish interests_! This sounds like an
|
|
acceptable explanation to why we could not immediately find the hypothesis
|
|
to be true. Our genes are more cunning that one could firstly believe,
|
|
despite their non-intentionality. Our seemingly unselfish acts are nothing
|
|
more than the result of an advanced selfish strategy. We open doors, jump
|
|
down in dark waters, and so on, because, in the end, someone will do the
|
|
same thing for us.
|
|
Following from this, we find a powerful argument to the question of why
|
|
we refrain from breaking social conventions (sometimes referred to as
|
|
'memes'), even though it would occasionally favour our personal interests to
|
|
do so. Most of us follow simple rules as 'do not steal bikes' or 'do not
|
|
perform genocide', because we (our genes) have learnt that breaking them
|
|
would, through complicated networks of other egoists, sooner or later strike
|
|
back on ourselves. That the human race would be more 'moral' than other
|
|
animals in is, then, only fine words which lack connection to the objective
|
|
reality as put forward by the reliable method of modern science.
|
|
As a final remark to the above, some gene-moralists fancy putting forward
|
|
the assumption that there are defect versions of the human race; unnatural
|
|
rebels whom fail to conform to the rules of the evolutionary ladder. They
|
|
are not many; after all, nature have a firm grip over us. But nature is not
|
|
perfectly perfect, thus open to mistakes. People whom does things which
|
|
cannot, no matter how far we stretch the explanations, be explained in terms
|
|
of egoism are sparkling clear examples of things that have gone wrong. The
|
|
fact that there are adults without children whom commit suicide out of no
|
|
apparent reason, cannot be anything else than signs that there are defect
|
|
genes in the 'pool'.
|
|
Have we now found enough evidence to conclude that the hypothesis
|
|
concerning the human evolutionary gene-egoism is true? Yes, the gene-
|
|
moralists say. But it does not take a genius to realise that something is
|
|
wrong with this conclusion. How could we from the hypothesis 'all humans are
|
|
egoists' via empirical observations which did _not_ support this theory come
|
|
to the conclusion that it is true?
|
|
Something is obviously wrong. But what?
|
|
The answer is simple. If we look closer at the above arguments, we
|
|
discover that they are nothing more than improper _additions_ to the thesis
|
|
we tried to prove. Instead of performing the scientific method from the
|
|
_question_ 'is man egoistic?', the additions slowly transferred the question
|
|
into the _statement_ 'man is egoistic!'; and from this statement we merely
|
|
formulated other theories which were said to support it. They sure support
|
|
the statement. But they are of no use for the _original_ question, for which
|
|
the examination was conducted in the first place.
|
|
|
|
In other words, we have not presented any 'scientific theory' after all,
|
|
merely a groundless speculation. The criterion of falsifiability vanished in
|
|
the process, leaving us with a 'theory' which cannot be empirically tested
|
|
under any conditions. Since the line of arguments coming from gene-moralists
|
|
always takes this form, their serious claim of being scientific ought to be
|
|
discarded.
|
|
Sure, we can still argue that man ought to be an egoist. Nothing I have
|
|
said in this text prevents us from this. Perhaps the world would be a much
|
|
better place if people acted less altruistic. But to jump to this conclusion
|
|
with the help of a highly dubious theory concerning our genes is to truly
|
|
misconceive what the scientific method is - and, more importantly, is not.
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
uXu #428 Underground eXperts United 1998 uXu #428
|
|
ftp://ftp.lysator.liu.se/pub/texts/uxu
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|