Yes, you are right that I changed the example considerably.
I first wrote something like "consider another example" but
then edited that out for some reason. In any event, I used
the example of my daughter because I thought this
would be the best case scenario for your argument since
there is a clear "Darwinian" advantage to saving my
daughter. The complete stranger seems to me to be the
worst case scenario since it is very hard to see a direct
advantage to my own descendents. Instead, I'm promoting the
survival of a competing set of genes, and this won't do :).
One suggestion I read somewhere was that the person I save
will have descendents who might promote the survial of my
descendents in some way out of gratitude. But to have to stoop
as low as this is merely to reinforce Art's point [wow, it
feels really weird to agree with Art on something :)]
BH:==
> Would I risk drowning to save her? Of course. Is the motivation to
>save my genes? Of course not, this is absurd. The motivation
>is that I love my daughter as much or more as myself. How
>could anyone deny this?
>
>KK> No one could. What you and *I* call the love we have for our
>children a biologist might call the preservation of genes. One does
>not diminish the other.
>
BH:==
>I think though that you have a mis-characterization of
>what the ultra-Darwinist would argue. It doesn't matter
>one wit what my motives are, what matters is the outcome.
>The outcome is that my descendent survives. This seems
>rather obvious to me. The real problem for the sociobiologists
>would be that something like altruism is a genetic trait.
>Merely arguing that a particular action promotes the survival
>of my genes is not enough.
>
>KK> This is where we disagree. I am not a sociobiologist so
>perhaps I am getting over my head here. This does seem more like
>an argument of which words to use for the same principle. Use
>one set, theists argree, use another sociobiologists agree.
>
It is not clear to me what you are disagreeing with. If there is
a gene for this "altruistic behavior" and if there is variation
within a population regarding this behavior and if the behavior
promotes the survival of the individual showing this behavior
then this "altruistic behavior" is going to be selected for.
What is going through an individuals mind when they engage in
this behavior (selfish or unselfish motives etc.) seems to me
to have nothing to do with it.
>Specifically, would you save a stranger. What would motivate you
>to do this?
>
This is a fair question yet one that is difficult to answer. I think
that none of us really know what we would do until the moment
arrives where we suddenly have to decide. I suspect that I would
react on impulse and emotion without much reason. As to my
motives I suspect they would be to help someone who seems
helpless.
"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing"
-- Blaise Pascal
Now to turn the question around, in an ultra-Darwinian scenario
it is mandatory that an action should promote the survival of
my genes or at least those very closely related to myself.
How would you explain someone attempting to save a stranger?
so" story unless the benefit to my descendents is greater
than the benefit to society in general, and again motives
seem to me to be irrelevant.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal