sociobiology

[trivas7]

It's pretty clear from the work of E.O.Wilson and others that there is a biological basis to altruism. Ethics is biology. Do Objectivists dispute this?

[JMeganSnow]

Yes. Next question.

[KendallJ]

Yes. Next question.

I'm with her. If you want to have a debate, go to the debate forum. If you want to have a discussion, then suggest you offer something of value for what you'd expect to get in return or you'll find people behaving a bit snippy with you. If you don't have to make your case, Jenni certainly can't be bothered to make hers.

There is no biological basis for altruism the way Rand defines such. There is a biological basis for any action or entity that successfully passes on genetic material. It's called natural selection.

Ethics is most certainly NOT biology.

Edited April 17, 2008 by KendallJ

[themadkat]

I'm with her. If you want to have a debate, go to the debate forum. If you want to have a discussion, then suggest you offer something of value for what you'd expect to get in return or you'll find people behaving a bit snippy with you. If you don't have to make your case, Jenni certainly can't be bothered to make hers.

There is no biological basis for altruism the way Rand defines such. There is a biological basis for any action or entity that successfully passes on genetic material. It's called natural selection.

Ethics is most certainly NOT biology.

I have a question. My PhD graduate study basically revolves around the topic this poster raises. I would like to have this discussion with the above poster, provided he is intellectually honest. However, I recognize that this is not the proper section of the forum to do this. Can the mods move this topic to a better location if the OP agrees to continue the discussion with me in a serious manner? I'm not an Objectivist myself, but as I believe my position on the matter would be much more consonant with Objectivism than the OP it could still provide a value.

[KendallJ]

Kat, I'm not trying to wave anyone off from engaging him. You do so for your own reasons and your own value obtained. I was trying only to clarify where Jenni might be coming from, and where the average person would be.

[DavidOdden]

I will once again express my standard low-level annoyance at how the concept of "debate" is so terribly misunderstood by opponents of Objectivism. In a debate, there is an assertion whose truth is disputed. Somebody has to make and defend a claim, somebody else has to refute that argument. The question "Do Objectivists dispute this?" is not a claim, and it cannot be debated. It is a question, and the question has been answered. The statement "E.O. Wilson claims that there is a biological basis to altruism" is a claim; you can try to construct an argument that it is a fact. Theoretically, an opponent could claim that Wilson does not claim this, but I doubt that anyone will take on that burden. Finally, there is the claim "there is a biological basis to altruism"; again, you might have better luck getting takers for such a debate (though personally I think it's buying a dangerous pig in a poke since "altruism" is only meaningful when applied to humans, so that the question would have to be something like "here is a basis in human biology for altruism in humans"). So I don't see that there is anything to debate, and instead this is just another opportunity to use the forum to spread philosophical ideas that have nothing at all to do with and are dimetrically opposed to Objectivism. But this is where such threads have been tolerated.

[trivas7]

I have a question. My PhD graduate study basically revolves around the topic this poster raises. I would like to have this discussion with the above poster, provided he is intellectually honest. However, I recognize that this is not the proper section of the forum to do this. Can the mods move this topic to a better location if the OP agrees to continue the discussion with me in a serious manner? I'm not an Objectivist myself, but as I believe my position on the matter would be much more consonant with Objectivism than the OP it could still provide a value.

I'm sorry, I don't have the expertise to debate this topic; I'm asking with a layman's impression of this subject.

[KendallJ]

This guy:

Sociobiology

Wilson defined sociobiology as "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior." By applying the evolutionary principles which went a long way to explaining the behavior of the social insects to understanding the social behavior of animals, including humans, Wilson established sociobiology as a new scientific field. He argued that all animal behavior, including humans, is the product of heredity and environmental stimuli/past experiences and free will is an illusion. He has referred the biological basis of behaviour as the "genetic leash."[3] The sociobiological view is that all animal social behavior is governed by epigenetic rules worked out by the laws of evolution. This theory and research proved to be seminal, controversial, and influential.[4]

The controversy of sociobiological research is in how it applies to humans. The theory established a scientific argument for rejecting the common doctrine of tabula rasa, which holds that human beings are born without any innate mental content and that culture functions to increase human knowledge and aid in survival and success. In the final chapter of the book Sociobiology and in the full text of his Pulitzer Prize-winning On Human Nature, Wilson argued that the human mind was shaped as much by genetic inheritance as it was by culture (if not more). There were limits on just how much influence social and environmental factors could have in altering human behavior.

Just from reading that bit, I'd say it is thinly veiled determinism. As David has already comment, possibly very valid for animal instincts, but it breaks down with the basic idea of conceptual thought.

[themadkat]

I'm sorry, I don't have the expertise to debate this topic; I'm asking with a layman's impression of this subject.

That was my impression, and that was why I wanted to discuss it with you. It is easy to take work in sociobiology and submit it as evidence for altruism, but I believe this is sloppiness either on the part of the scientist if that is what they concluded or sloppiness on the part of the reader if that is what they take away from an article that doesn't say that. My position is that sociobiology says no such thing (though it is a separate question as to what the personal beliefs of EO Wilson are on the matter) and I was going to explain why. My intention was not to jargon you to death. I'm just excited by the topic because it's what I do.

This guy:

Just from reading that bit, I'd say it is thinly veiled determinism. As David has already comment, possibly very valid for animal instincts, but it breaks down with the basic idea of conceptual thought.

Human behavior does have a biological basis. That is a fact, otherwise there would be no heritable behavioral disorders, for instance. However, I think that for whatever reason, scientists like to overstate the influence of that basis and underestimate the degree to which a thoughtful, introspective person can affect and alter their motivations.