As I mentioned in a
previous blog, “A New Paradigm?,” philosophy in general rarely seems to go
anywhere or solve any problems because there is no well-defined starting place
from which philosophy begins nor do we know where it is supposed to end. It is
often asked, “How should I (or we) live?” which seeks a moral foundation for
living while completely ignoring both the beginning and ending points of our
nature.
While we might say that
we do philosophy for the sake of examining our own lives, pursuing the truth
(whatever that means, nevermind what the truth is alleged to do for us), or
inoculating ourselves against bad ideas, whatever reason any of us have for
doing philosophy is ancillary to our very existence. So, might it be a good
idea to at least begin philosophy from the question “How did I (or we) get
here?” and end it by answering the question, “Where am I (or we) going?” At
first glance, it may seem a bit arbitrary to pick these as starting and ending
points for philosophy, but I do not think there are better points to begin
working from, for doing philosophy from these points is at least based upon
something concrete; our existence. [Or at least one’s own existence since we
cannot prove others exist. But I digress…]
To once again paraphrase
Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene,
our genes use us, not the other way around. In the old Nature vs. Nurture
debate (which shapes our lives more?), being nurtured is secondary to our
Nature, our existence, so I don’t see how Nurture could shape our lives more than our Nature. Even the most
rational person, nurtured to believe in logic and nothing else, is prone to
bouts of irrationality. How could this be? Because we do not have conscious
control over the entire world, much less ourselves, and this is due to the
expression of our genes: Emotions are chemically driven and underwritten by the
very way we are built. Realizing the power our genes have over us in attempting
to get themselves into the next generation presents great explanatory power
over otherwise seemingly irrational behavior. People who declare themselves
rational constantly bicker over ideas because of the lack of a philosophical
starting point and finishing line, but by agreeing with Dawkins about the goal
of our genes gives philosophy a place to start from and finish. (And, of
course, all rational people – or at least rational atheists – agree with
Dawkins.)
Take, for example, how
problematic devising an ethical system is. There is no flawless ethical system
because there is no starting or ending point for ethical conundrums. In cases
where those points are defined, such points betray what the person arguing for
any given idea favors, revealing how they
think the world should operate because it suits them. If an ethical system is, say, devised such that our actions
should not cause physical harm to others, what is often revealed is that this
is simply the preference of the person advocating such a position who, when
pressed, can’t really express why they have taken such a position. What’s
revealed is that the advocate’s position is actually rooted in their emotions
and not so much in reason, with emotions being rooted in our biology to a
greater degree than our capacity to be rational. Meta-ethics has failed to
answer where ethics arise from because most meta-ethical hypotheses place
ethical origins in some mythical, ethereal, or mental world and not in our own
bodies. Meta-ethics has failed because it has failed to focus on the question “Why
be ethical?” from the point of view of our genes’ survival (Evolutionary Psychology
notwithstanding). Why ought we not
physically harm others if it helps advance our genes or the best genes of our
species into the next generation? [By ‘best,’ I mean two things: Genes that
manifest the most favorable traits in a given environment and gives us the
genetic variety necessary to withstand a disease that would otherwise wipe out
the species.] Of course, maybe the belief that we shouldn’t physically harm
others helps stabilize communities (read: tribes) which in turn gives us access
to more mates and resources that aid survival.
These points considered,
it is perhaps best to start philosophy from the point of “I (or we) exist”
(having previously countered counters to Descartes’ initially false assertion).
For now, since there are more pressing questions, we’ll have to regulate to the
background how our parents genes got us where we are in order to focus on the
question of how we’re going to live given that our genes are going to express
themselves over the course of our lives. How will they make us behave? What
problems will we encounter simply because we exist and how will we attempt to
fix those problems?
Although not meant to be
an exhaustive list, I have (as have others) identified several key obstacles
regarding an individual’s existence. They are:
One is trying to overcome death (the most basic biological
imperative).
One is trying not to be hungry (so as to overcome death and be fit
for mating).
One is trying to avoid illness (so as to overcome death and be fit
for mating).
One is trying to overcome fear (so they can take risks necessary
to find food, mates, etc.).
One is trying to live without being controlled (so they can take
risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.).
One is trying to reproduce (or may have sexual urges based on a
biological imperative…which is meant to overcome death through the passing on
of genes.)
Now let’s attempt to ask a simple question – “How should I (or we)
live?” – and see if Genetic Philosophy can give us a less complex answer and
less hoops than traditional philosophy. Rationally, we know we cannot overcome
death; our genes are programmed to die at some point. We have few options in
overcoming death: either ensure that our name goes down in history (a short
term solution, but potentially long if you’re a Greek philosopher or insane
dictator), get our genes into the next generation through reproduction
(potentially a long term solution so long as our offspring keep reproducing),
or both. [Let’s rule out some mad scientist being able to manipulate our
biology and make us live forever since none of us can outlive the universe.
Would we even want to? Is immortality worth it? Ah, so many questions…]
Among our choices, trying to get your name to go down in history
is fraught with difficulties; in fact, almost all of the most famous people in
history weren’t even attempting to be famous and are instead famous because of
others’ fascination with whatever they did. Moreover, assuming one rises to
prominence does not mean they are going to enjoy their fame after they have
died. I might also add that becoming a historical figure will only last as long
as the species or the Earth is around. The only practical solution to
overcoming death then is to get our genes into the next generation, and hope
that our decedents pass the genes on, so on and so forth. This becomes our
starting point in answering the question, “How should I (or we) live?”
[Assuming one doesn’t want to have
children, one can still examine the question from the ‘genetic’ point of view
since our biology commands us in other ways.]
If it seems like the next logical thing to say once we’ve accepted
the desire to get our genes into the next generation is that we should do
whatever it takes to accomplish that goal, one is oversimplifying the
situation. [While we are trying to have Genetic Philosophy give us simple
answers, we mustn’t oversimplify.] If
we thought clubbing a woman over the head and dragging her back to our home was
the best way to get our genes into the next generation, we have to accept all
the risks that go along with such behavior. The biggest problem is that we’d
have to accept that violence may be done to us in competing for a mate which
goes against our primary instincts to survive. Second, our offspring would be
locked in a never-ending battle over resources which would reduce their chances
of getting their genes (and ours) passed on. Collectively, we do not want that
and how (Western) societies are set up reflects this.
Western society, as it has evolved (so to speak) appears to have
unconsciously adopted genetic philosophy and created societies geared towards
equality for all because that appears to offer everyone the best chance of
accomplishing the goal of producing offspring. Certainly racial tensions and a
tribal mindset still exist, but such base desires are really a manifestation of
resource competitions. If recognized for what they are, racism and tribalism
can become something of a vestigial appendix of the human mind. (I hope,
anyway.) The problem entering the equation comes in when we do not consciously
considered how our biology inclines us to act. Naturally, ancient Scandinavians
and ancient Polynesians are going to differ wildly in their behaviors and values
as the environment each evolved in has had a dramatic effect on their biology,
and hence, also each one’s behavior and values.
So, when asking a question such as “How should I (or we) live?”
should be answered every step of the way in accordance with our biological
needs and desires. Or, supposing we don’t want a child for some reason
undoubtedly based upon our biology, how our biology affects us. For example, I
know that if I allow the slow driver in front of me to anger me, that raises
the levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) in my bloodstream and elevated
levels of cortisol in my bloodstream is damaging to my body over time. Being
aware of my biology helps me become aware of my situation and allows me to take
a moment to analyze the situation. That sure sounds deceptively simple but it
is not: If I know the biological cost of anger, I might be inclined to find
ways of managing my emotions so as to avoid anger.
Any good philosopher
should have or be thinking of objections to my so-called Genetic Philosophy by
now. For example, one might ask: Could Genetic Philosophy be used to enslave
people, say, women? My answer would be, it shouldn’t, for two reasons. First,
as a species we should seek genetic variety because this helps prevent a
species from being wiped out by a single disease. Second, at least in part,
genetic variety leads to a differing of cultures which may be a potential
source of alternate or competing ideas when trying to problem-solve. Having
different genders and cultures allows for different ideas, and a diversity of
ideas is necessary for long-term survival. As you can see, a simple question
with a simple answer (that I may have oversimplified).
I believe that Genetic
Philosophy, as I like to call it, has the potential to solve ages old debates
such as whether abortion or capital punishment should be permissible, how
should I (or we) live, what the meaning of life is, and – due to the nature of
doing philosophy from a genetic point of view – whether or not it is okay to be
irrational. My hopes for Genetic Philosophy may be misplaced as I have yet to
thorough test a single issue just mentioned using this new paradigm. But, I
will get around to it as soon as my genes will allow.
No comments:
Post a Comment