trc@houti.UUCP (07/11/83)
Response to Tim Maroney on bio-altruism: "Tabula rasa" does not mean that a human being has *no* innate nature. However, it does mean that a human is born with no wired in ideas or concepts. That is, there is no circuitry in the brain that makes it easier to accept a moral stance than an immoral one, except the innate rational ability. It *is* rational to act morally (though not all *moral systems* are rational), but such a morality can only arise after birth, by rational thought. This is a much more likely source of the similar moralities of different cultures than hereditary altruism. One thing that needs to be cleared up - "species altruism" is not observed in all non-human creatures, nor on a consistent basis in most. Animals of the same species do fight, sometimes to the death. Thus it is not correct to say in effect "all other animals have it, so we probably do too." You state that the idea of "no inherent altruism" arises from Judeo-Christian culture, because of its view of humans as naturally immoral. Two points - one, you assume that "altruism == moral" (I disagree). Second, you leave out the possibility of being born *amoral*, but capable of recognizing what is moral and accepting it because it is rationally the correct way to act for one's own benefit. Again - it is not irrational to act morally! I do not believe that killing (with or without cause) another is *instinctively* repulsive. If it were, children would presumably also have to have an inherent understanding of the high level concepts "human", and "death". And, unless the altruism were very weak, a concerted effort of teaching would be required to overcome it - and yet both modern and primitive peoples have often murdered others. Since such an instinct would have to be very weak, it will have always been obscured by cultural factors. Thus, in order to show that such an instinct exists (and the burden of proof does rest upon those that propose it, since it is not self evident), a controlled experiment would have to be run in which no relevant cultural influences are allowed to intervene. Also, since morality is rational, the children in the experiment would have to be never presented with moral choices to think about, until the time of the test, lest they figure out for themselves the answers. Then, if they were able to come up with consistent answers to moral questions during the test, without thinking it over, they must have an instinct for morality, of whatever sort. Even if such an instinct were found, would that imply that it is the proper basis for morality? Or should it be regarded as an atavistic symptom from our biological heritage, with no more relevance than one's appendix is normally accorded? And what if other, conflicting instincts exist? - nothing in evolution precludes that. We might have instincts for killing, as well as altruism - should we base our morality on those instincts as well? There *is* solid evidence that, whatever hypothetical instincts humans might have, they are all so weak that they can be overcome, one way or the other, by thought or by acceptance of a cultural morality. Since we have the ability to reason, why shouldnt we use it to figure out what is moral - unless one believes that reason is not capable of dealing with reality, or that morality arises from a non-real (supernatural) realm. Why should we blindly accept a biological tendency, if it exists, as the basis of morality? Tom Craver houti!trc
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (07/13/83)
Tom Craver's article is full of biological inaccuracies with respect to the behavior of real animals. There are pleanty of altruistic animals, or rather pleanty of altruistic seeming animals. There is no need to believe that a gene for "altruism" cannot exist. There is no need to believe that a gene for "selfishness" mustnt exist. I could go on at great length about this. I can present a proof of why total altruism cannot exist in any society even a human one using game theory. i can present a proof for observed altruism and observed selfishness as a direct consequence of the genetic makeup of the relavent species (which explains altrusim in insects, for instance even the death of 'worker bees for the good of the hive' as in effect selfish behavior). I can do a really good job, too, but Richard Dawkins does a better one in his book THE SELFISH GENE. It is a 220 page paperback with English large type, it will take you one night to read it. I would love to debate this whole point with both Tims, but until you have read at least this book then I will have to give 400 line soliloquays and explanation before I get to make even the smallest of points. Please go read the book! Both of you have valid points but there are huge gaping errors in the sweeping generalisations you make which are driving me nuts and I cant do anything about it until you have read... Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (07/13/83)
It occurs to me that there are 3 Tims in on this discussion now that Tim Maloney has entered it. Sorry Tim M, I have been thinking about the 2 Tims battling it out and I forgot to update my thinking. sorry. laura creighton utcsstat!laura