More on Selfish Gene Theory

In this space, in recent days, we have been paying homage to the Z-grade yet schlocktastic sciffy movie MARS NEEDS WOMEN by posting as many pictures of Yvonne Craig as possible. I have also, between pictures, been discussing and debating whether or not morality is objective rather than conventional.

By objective, I mean the principle of ‘do as you would be done by’ applies to everyone, and is always and everywhere a valid standard for discriminating morally licit from illicit. I do not mean all applications of of all rules have the same force and effect in all circumstances, especially where two principles conflict. Conventional means that the principle only applies by convention, use or tradition, that is, it applies only to your own kin, comrades, clan, tribe, nation, or race, but not to others’.

Now, the most common and most persuasive argument an atheist or materialist can make in favor of universal morality is a genetic argument. The argument is that, as a matter of pure game theory, any races and breeds that develops a gene which imposes an instinct for altruism toward other members of one’s own bloodline, will, as a matter of course, have a definite statistical advantage in the lottery of Darwinian survival, and will come to outnumber those races and breeds that do not.

The argument is that the purely blind and selfish drive of the genes we carry in us therefore mesmerizes us with an instinct to altruism and self-sacrifice which is not in our immediate self-interest, but unintentionally serves the self-interest of the family, clan, tribe, breed, bloodline, and race.

The argument is that this mesmeric spell makes us hallucinate that there is such a thing as a moral code we are bound to obey, but whether this hallucination is true or false, it serves the blind and selfish reasons of the parasites called genes dwelling inside us, whom we much, willy-nilly, serve and obey.

Putting this argument to the test, I asked a hypothetical question about the following rule of behavior:  “Abducting Nubile Young Woman to Serve as Concubines, Dancing Girls, or Breeding Stock is bad.” Is this a rule that bind only those who share the non-abduction gene, or does it bind all men, including those with not one gene in common with us? I used the hypothetical example of an abductor who is a Man from Mars. He is not of our tribe, nation, or race. He is, at least during the Obama Administration NASA days, beyond the reach of any reasonable expectation of retaliation from Earthlings.

Is it objectively wrong for the Martian Warlord to abduct a luscious Earthgirl like Yvonne Craig to his horrible harem of terror atop Olympus Mons? Or is it only wrong because the Selfish Gene says it is wrong? Is it wrong objectively, or only genetically?

(Of course I mean to use this as an excuse to post more pictures!)

Read the rest of this entry »

Originally published at John C. Wright's Journal. Please leave any comments there.