The question is, crudely, 'Why don't we take care of poor/sick/homeless strangers with the same love and hope as we would our own blood-kin?' phrased in more vague terms really. So kind of. How are altruism and responsibility related? (Pardon me if I seem stubborn, there's a particular point I'm trying to nail down for myself, philosophically.)
ok...so i think i know what you are saying. for me, i side with richard dawkins on this and say that we dont do this because of our genetics. its a survival issue. so self preservation is our number one goal, we however know that we are going to die, so we have kids, and kids will be the vehicle for our genes to survive, so we take care of them. he made the argument, if you are 1, as a genetic importance, then your siblings or kids would be 1/2, because they carry 1/2 of your genes. and your cousins 1/4 and so on...when you get to 1/8, its just not worth caring because the gene pool is so different. so we are responsible to ourselves and our genes in a sense to not let them die, adn one way of doing that is to have others carry them......does that make sense?
I understand Dawkins arguments. I just don't find them particularly compelling in a more generalized humanist perspective. To elaborate, of course my family get the majority of my financial, emotional, social, etc, support. I'm around them the most. But does that preclude me from inviting strangers in need into my life if I have the ability to help them without drastic change in my quality of life? To give perspective, I plan on never having biological children, so my genetic legacy isn't that important to me. I have other family members who are having plenty of children, the chromosomes that I would value according to Dawkins are being passed on, in fact, in greater variety than I would have been able to manage on my own. Dawkins argument made perfect sense to me when Ayn Rand also made perfect sense to me. Both are a bit too sure of themselves to be reasonable to a mature mind.
it does mean that you wouldn't let a stranger in, because why woudl you share resources. i think what is happening is that the application of our instincts in modern times dosent always line up. if i were alive 27000 years ago, i woudl never let anyone come in and just out of good will share the provisions of the tribe. there is a reason for that, and that reason is still carried by us. we haven't diluted those instincts. can i ask you why you never plan on having biological children? that seems very strange to me and i never understood why you never want to propagate your genes-unless you have one for self destruction. your nephews, as close as they are, they would never be as close genetically to your kids. also...how do you know which genes you want to pass on and that your nephews carry it?
one does not pass them on to have variety, the reason we have variety is a survival mechanism. we want to pass on the same, its a fight between the woman and the man to pass on as many of theirs dominant, recessive) as they can. so i want to pass on black hair, she wants to pass on red...etc etc this is a very large argument, with many moving parts and we can get caught up easily and drift- also, is the only reason dawkins not appeal to you is because he seems too sure of himself?
I have a chronic heart condition. It's required me to have one major surgery, and 2 pacemakers in my first 22 years of life, not including other complications. While the experiences that it has given me are valuable, and instructional, I would not wish them up on anyone. It has a greater than 50% chance of passing on to my children. This, in combination with several other factors about my genetics incline me to not want to pass them on. My interest is in the longevity of the species, and the species will do just fine without my particular genetics. It is benefited more by my intellectual/professional/social/artistic legacy.
Can I ask what No, he's become something grotesque in his old age. I read The Selfish Gene, and appreciated it for the necessary piece of thought that it represents.can i ask you why you never plan on having biological children?
there is a reason for that, and that reason is still carried by us. we haven't diluted those instincts
this 'reason' is? If you could state it in the most simple and direct terms, it would be greatly appreciated. is the only reason dawkins not appeal to you is because he seems too sure of himself?
i dot think that is a beneficial reason...i mean if richard hawking's dad thought i carry the gene for xyz, that woudlnt have benefited the species...right? not to say i am pro life, but in this case i don think you are the one who gets to decide which genes are important enough to pass on. you could be caring a gene that makes us resistant to some future strand of ebola or something. as far as the reason, its genetic. everything we are is in one way or another to preserve our genes. sharing resources, in any case, is only beneficial when it makes the likelihood of our genes survival more probable. so fear is an instinct that we might not have such a need for living in america suburbia, but we had much need for it 10000 years ago. and it has not faded. as with other genes that were present because they evolved to be dominant, they have kept themselves that way. so sexual desires and fear still dominate our actions. the issue and the confusion comes, in my opinion, when these genetic dominant traits dont line up with todays culture. becasue our genes say, dont share resources, but society sais...share away, its sinful not to. yes?
But I do, I'm afraid. This is a bold statement, and actually meshes well with a modern genetic study that identifies a set of 'warrior' genes, whose presence or absence up- or down-regulates biochemical aggression in the body. If you have the gene, you are more prone to take large risks, be more aggressive in all walks of life really, which, over millenia, leads to aggression being a highly selected for trait. I find it interesting you mention sin as a motivating force.i don think you are the one who gets to decide which genes are important enough to pass on.
the issue and the confusion comes, in my opinion, when these genetic dominant traits dont line up with todays culture.
faith is very powerful... and no, i dont think you get to decide. i think you put your sperm in there, and hope that the brown eyes show up. you or i dont decide which genes get passed down. if we did, then you woudl take the gene without the heart condition and throw it away adn have kids, right?
Yep. Still not worth it. I imagine a scenario, where my genetic child finds out that I knew everything I knew about my illness, it's inheritability, the high risk of death in adolescence, the restrictions it places on those who manage to survive to adulthood, and conceived them anyway. I knew that they had a high likelihood of suffering as I have suffered, and inflicted it upon them anyway. I can't claim ignorance, as my parents do. They had no idea what was in their genes, no one did, 22 years ago. We've left the topic I want to discuss though, which is responsibility.have you thought of that?
Hey TB, if you look in the upper right hand corner of the comment box when you are making a reply or a comment, you will see the "markup." -Click on it for a description.