From reading the two texts “The
Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins and “The Selfless Gene” by Olivia Judson, I do
not agree that Darwinism challenges the idea that human nature is altruistic
most of the time. Both texts show different, but equally important, evidence
for their arguments. Dawkins shows us that it is possible that we, as humans,
are only altruistic towards relatives who can pass on our genes. Judson shows
us that we are also altruistic towards strangers and have evolved that way for
survival. It is important to see that both of these ideas are possible and can
coexist.
In “The Selfish Gene,” Dawkins
writes, “[A] gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in
other bodies. If so, this would appear as individual altruism, but it would be
brought about by gene selfishness” (Dawkins 179). By saying this, Dawkins means
that we are only being helpful or self-sacrificing to save others that are
related to us and/or have the same genes. To say this would imply that our sole
purpose in life would be to save our own genes from dying out. However, this is
not at all what the reality is. It is much more complex. This may be an aspect
of the situation, though. Humans do, by nature, try to help family members more
than they do try to help non-relatives. This idea that Dawkins is referring to
challenges our view that humans are altruistic by nature, because it says that
we are conditionally altruistic.
However, it does not mean that this is the role we are destined to play.
A perfect example of this is shown
when Oliva Judson writes, “Humans often risk their lives for strangers…or for
people they know but are not related to” (Judson 191). By stating this, Judson
is saying that we are altruistic not only to relatives, but to others as well.
This implies that we do not have selfish genes and are actually caring toward
other people by nature. If this were entirely true, then there would be no
difference in our minds between a sibling and a stranger. However, it can be
partially true. We, as humans, tend to care for some strangers. Judso’s idea goes against our biological nature,
Darwinism and Dawkins ideas. To say that there is no biological aspect of the
situation would mean that we are free to pick and choose who we care for enough
to risk our own lives for. This is not the
case. We can not refuse to allow our child to survive something that we can die
for instead. Likewise, most of us would not jump in front of a train to save a
stranger from being hit.
Judson also writes, “The evolution
of social living requires limiting aggression so that neighbors can tolerate
each other” (Judson 193).By saying this, Judson is saying that, as a species,
we can not exist if we are aggressive toward one another. There are, however,
acts of aggression that humans commit toward one another. We are, for the most
part, altruistic toward each other. This idea shows us that Judson is indeed
correct that we must ‘tolerate’ each other to survive. Though, it does also
mean that we are this way toward each other because of our social way of
living. This idea can imply that we are genetically pre-programmed to help
other members of our species. Saying this would not specify that it is
impossible to be both altruistic towards our own genes and helpful to other
members of our species.
In fact, the reason we are
altruistic to certain strangers may even be that they contain a gene that we
are trying to aid in survival. On the other hand, we may be psychologically
obligated to help a stranger because we know we will feel guilty if we don’t,
sometimes so much that tis can cause stress in our bodies and stress can create
problems such as gene mutations. Either of these are possible, and both can be
the case. In order to go against either side of the argument, that biologically
we are altruistic or that we are not, we would need evidence that both cases could not coincide with each
other, which doesn’t seem very plausible.
In conclusion, humans are conscious
beings, and we sometimes make choices that may or may not benefit someone in
need. We are able to choose whether or not we are altruistic toward someone who
is not related to us. However, this choice is more difficult when we are asked
to be altruistic toward a relative, because we feel obligated. Perhaps we are
able to choose for strangers, but it is necessary for us to save our own genes.
Whatever the case may be, it is evident that humans are both altruistic toward
family and sometimes altruistic
toward strangers.
No comments:
Post a Comment