Researchers Trace Origin Of An "altruism Gene"

Science & Technology Biosciences
21

So to your third question, I’d say that self-preservation would contradict the preservation of your genetic code if no additional action was taken to reproduce your genetic code (at least some of it via traditional reproduction or maybe all of it via cloning :huh: ) and you knowingly succumbed to organismal senescence without attempting at least to preserve the survival of your genetic code past the survival of yourself. I’m not saying that this is necessarily ethically true, but it would be true to an individual possessed of the above mentioned ethical values.

hmmm. this would tantamount to asking where the “go forth and multiply” edict is in objectivism. Certainly if Objectivism eschews family for any reason (cannot find a rational place for it as a value or goal) then you could have a problem.

However, I’m not so sure this is necessarily so. Rand did not have children but one could say that her articulation has helped many understand how to survive better by more effacacious use of their rational faculty, and as such will allow them to selectively survive based upon the proper use of that faculty. Yes, Rand’s genes weren’t preserved in the action but as long as the philosophy she left behind values childrearing as a possible rational endeavor, it may not matter. This was certainly not altruism on her part.

Interesting thought.

22

It seems that it would be ethically permissible in an Objectivist system for the entire human race to decide not to reproduce. Is this the case? While the probability of something like this happening is extremely low, it would ultimately result in the death of humanity and the death of all ethical systems.

Ethics aren’t evaluated in aggregate so asking what is ethically permissible for the entire race is a non sequitir. The question is does the philosophy eschew family as a value, as such. I.e. does the philosophy specifically (or maybe even culturally) steer people away from childrearing. I think the answer is no. In that case wether any one member of the group chooses to rear a child may not be relevant, as long as enough do.

This is the big claim among republicans right now. That Democrats have a higher percentage of single, childless people and as a result will select themselves out of existence. A result of the women’s lib and gay movements?