Dialougue with Juan...

[Jaiket]

From the thread 'The Relation of Athiesm to Fatalism'.

This was my last post:

Thanks Juan. I think I undertsand what you were saying more clearly now, that is to say I misunderstood it originally.

When you said that (I paraphrase) 'there are no genes for behaviour' I took the word behaviour in a differentlight than you meant I think. From a zoological point of view genes and behaviour are undeniably linked, but not always as a simple automatic relationship.

However, given what Mr Collins said, how would you argue that what he proposed considering the male Y chromosome is contradictory to what I said regarding morals?

(I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.)


Now let's see where this goes.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

From the thread 'The Relation of Athiesm to Fatalism'.

This was my last post:

Thanks Juan. I think I undertsand what you were saying more clearly now, that is to say I misunderstood it originally.

When you said that (I paraphrase) 'there are no genes for behaviour' ( *per se* -jt3) I took the word behaviour in a differentlight than you meant I think. From a zoological point of view genes and behaviour are undeniably linked, but not always as a simple automatic relationship.

However, given what Mr Collins said, how would you argue that what he proposed considering the male Y chromosome is contradictory to what I said regarding morals?

OK, given the terms of engagement of debate, or even rhetorical discussion, one can in theory argue anything about anything, and as long as it can be made to sound good somebody somewhere is gonna bite and take that argument to be a statement of fact. There are usually two sides to a coin, and there are frequently even more sides to an argument. People typically key in on those things that agree with their preconceptions and overlook or ignore those things that do not agree with their preconceptions.

Which is my longwinded way of saying..."why must I automatically be presumed to take the position expected by the question?"

FRANCIS COLLINS:
This is a moderately weak predisposing factor of intense scientific interest
because it may help us understand what to do for this disease. But I would
certainly not argue that this particular DNA sequence does anything to
abolish the importance of free will.
And let me make one parallel here that I think is really worth thinking
about. You and I, and about half the people in this room are predisposed to get in trouble with the law at about a tenfold increased risk than the other half of the people in the room. And that's because we have a Y-chromosome.

CHARLES OGLETREE:
And what do you mean by Y-chromosome, so we'll be clear to this audience what you're talking about?

FRANCIS COLLINS:
So all males have a Y chromosome, we have an X and a Y. All females have two X chromes--

CHARLES OGLETREE:
And that influences predisposition?

FRANCIS COLLINS:
Well, we don't understand the connection in terms of the biological pathways but the fact remains that males get in trouble with the law a lot more often than females. And yet, that is not used as an argument to say that males are not responsible for their actions. At least I haven't heard it used.
(LAUGHTER)

(I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.)

I remember making a comment in a discussion with a social group I once belonged to (and dearly miss) very much in agreement with Dr. Collins statements. Of course, I made one significant blunder, I included the observation of race as well (in consideration of narrowing the focus to the US alone). And for my blunder I was immediately trounced on soundly by all of the other members present. Needless to say, I am more than a little skittish to broach the subject again.

If we were to remove the race factor from the equation by expanding our representative sample to other cultures, it still seems accurate that the majority of prisons are populated by the male gender.

I am almost certain in my belief that a significant part of what we call morals are genetic based.

Perhaps, but why are males the predominant gender incarcerated? Is it because males traditionally are the ones that strive for power are challenge authority? Is it because females are more concerned (or occupied) with child rearing and family issues? Is it because the female gender is still subconsciously viewed as a sexual prize by males (especially those in authority)? Do those in positions of authority tend to treat the female gender with more leniency or mercy? Are males naturally inclined to cross the boundaries of what is socially acceptable? What role does socio-economic status play? Are females more "wise and intelligent" than to challenge the social boundaries?

I think it is safe and fair to state that females are capable of committing essentially the same "crimes" that males do, it just seems statistically that they do not cross that boundary with the same frequency, or cross the boundary with the same intensity, as males tend to. But that's just my unscientific observation...

I don't know. I think that is what Dr. Collins was getting at: "we don't understand the connection in terms of the biological pathways." All we can state with any certainty is that the male gender does in fact comprise the majority of those incarcerated.

 

[Jaiket]

Hi Juan,

..."why must I automatically be presumed to take the position expected by the question?"

Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've (unintentionally) mischaracterised a member's post (or even the first time I've done it to yourself - given that I appear to have erred so twice in one thread ). I have a tendency to interpret too quickly and stumble on for a while before it's pointed out I'm battering a strawman, or worse - thin air.

I asked the question because I thought that you offered Dr Collins' statements as a form of rebuttal to what I had said in the other thread. In honesty I'm not clear in my mind what you were saying. I suppose asking what you meant would have been a better start.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've (unintentionally) mischaracterised a member's post (or even the first time I've done it to yourself - given that I appear to have erred so twice in one thread ). I have a tendency to interpret too quickly and stumble on for a while before it's pointed out I'm battering a strawman, or worse - thin air.

I asked the question because I thought that you offered Dr Collins' statements as a form of rebuttal to what I had said in the other thread. In honesty I'm not clear in my mind what you were saying. I suppose asking what you meant would have been a better start.

Fair enough, and certainly you are not the only person to jump to conclusions, goodness knows I do my fair share. But I find that when I am aware of it, I do a little better at catching it.

Originally Posted by jaiket
(I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.)

Originally Posted by jaiket
I am almost certain in my belief that a significant part of what we call morals are genetic based.

I have long thought there is an inordinate emphasis placed on genetics, nature at the expense of nurture, and I think this is the underlying argument by Dr. Collins. In that sense, I was offering Dr. Collins' statement as a form of rebuttal. But it is a rebuttal that is easily taken out of context, hence my comment about implications.

There is a longstanding train of thought, about 25 years or so I would say, that wishes to assign all behaviors to genetic components. The philosophical backlash underlying such a train of thought (which seems to me evident in the comment about all animal behavior being genetically based, paraphrased) is a ready alibi to excuse any anti-social behavior. Yet, I must also consider, that "anti-social" is relative, considering which particular society is being considered. It is difficult at best, if not almost impossible, to create a blanket definition of "anti-social" because there are so many cultural exceptions. In a sense, we are trying to develop an all encompassing statement based on one (or very few) examples, and it is too easy to see where the statement is not applicable beyond a certain range.

So we are stuck with, to use the previous example of predisposition to drunkeness, trying to discern whether or not drunkeness is actually anti-social. In many societies it is, and is discouraged, via morality, law, stigma, etc. In many other societies drunkeness is encouraged, as a form of social bonding and hospitality. What role does genetics play, if this "prevalence" gene actually existed (which point I neglected, the discussion quoted pointed out that the "drunkeness gene" to which was referred was manufactured for the sake of that discussion) across human populations, why is drunkeness stigmatic in some cultures and not in others? Is the gene "more" prevalent in some cultures than in others? If the gene is more prevalent, then there are a few considerations. One is whether or not, if this gene is exceptionally prevalent in a focused population, whether that would demarcate a sub-species (as it does according to some biologists concerning animal populations)? Another would be, if we humans are actually "one species" despite the rhetoric, why this gene is largely confined to a distinct population (which begs the question of application by biology to animals, particularly if humans are considered, "biologically speaking," to be just another form of animal). In other words, if a big nose is all it takes to demarcate a sub-species, then there are multiple sub-species of the human animal. So we enter a new wrinkle to the discussion...politics, and how politics plays with scientific observation.

Now, again if this prevalence gene exists, why are some individuals having this gene absolute tea-totallers, having never touched a drop in their lives and have no desire or want to taste alcohol? Is there some secondary gene that undermines the effect of the initial gene? Or is it training, education, environment, "nurture?" Dominant and recessive genetics is a tricky business, Mendel seems to have oversimplified in the effort to explain. To simply state that brown eyes are dominant and blue eyes are recessive is an oversimplification. Blue eyes occasionally seem to crop up "out of nowhere" in predominantly brown eyed populations, assuming that there is some influx of blue eyes somewhere in that population's history. And human history is full of cross- and inter-breeding. Conquerer and conquered. Active and passive intermingling. So there are really very few "pure" human gene strains available to measure by. I have seen reference to 3: Ainu, Bushmen, and Lapplanders. The population of Iceland has been being used as a modern control group in the field of genetics because of their isolation, relative stability and small population size, they are descendant from Nordic Vikings and have been genetically stable for over 500 years. I have also read that the "true" Jewish lineage of Cohen is also genetically isolated, and can be shown to be so.

But by and large the typical human populations we would consider, in the West especially, are interbred. We have a genetic hodge-podge from diverse sources. So an imaginary gene predisposing someone to drunkeness could conceivably show up in "anybody." A point brought out in the referenced discussion is that human prejudices being what they can be, if word were to "get out" that a given population had a predisposition to said gene, that the remaining society would judgementally ostracize that segment of the population. Certainly this is historically accurate. The trouble is, the potential for that gene to show up randomly is there. Thank goodness, having said gene is *not* an incommutable sentence, as demonstrated by the tea-totallers. So, despite the "fact" that such a gene might predispose somebody to a want for drink, it really is that person's choice(s), based on the nurture aspect of their lives and environment, that determine whether or not that person actually "succombs" to the potential effects of that gene. In other words, there is factually a gene predisposing a person to diabetes: a person can deal with it and live a healthy and productive life, or they can succomb to it and die a miserable premature death. The choice belongs to the individual, on how to act on their genetic predisposition. Genetics is no excuse; legally, rhetorically, socially, philosophically, or morally. Yet, I have heard genetics used to defend the indefensible in every one of these categories.

Then we have the gender issue. More politics, rhetoric and deliberate re-writing of the science in an effort to bolster one's philosophical outlook. Are men with this gene more disposed to give in to its influence, or are women "equal?" Or are women somehow better able physiologically / psychologically / spiritually to rise above the influence of this gene? Are there cultural influences that set different standards for the sexes, or is that specific society encouraging "equality" despite the apparent physiological and psychological differences? What of gender abiguity and hermaphrodites? Where does homosexuality play into this? I have heard a lot of differing opinions regarding these things, usually culturally based, and none all-encompassing, and quite deliberately twisting the science surrounding the matter. That's rhetoric for ya! A person hears what they want to and disregards the rest.

 

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by jaiket
(I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.)

Originally Posted by jaiket
I am almost certain in my belief that a significant part of what we call morals are genetic based.

I know I keep coming back to this, and I apologize for any inconvenience, but I feel I am not quite reaching the basis of the question.

I am somewhat puzzled by the seeming contradiction, "...what we call morals are genetic based" contrasted with "I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found." It should be no surprize with what I have pointed to that I doubt the existence of a morality gene, per se. Genetics could possibly provide some basis to build on, I suppose, although I have seen nothing to indicate that beyond what I mentioned in the other thread regarding epigenetics. Epigenetics reads to me as learned traits that are also heritable, that there seems to be some influence on genetics but not the genome. Staying with the example of drunkeness, while there is no gene for such, there may well be an epigenetic influence, and that epigenetic influence can be heritable. Perhaps this explains why certain behaviors tend to run in families, disregarding other factors such as socio-economic rank in society. How morality relates biologically is an intrigue, to say the least. In a modern sense, I still think morality is predominantly a learned behavior. Yet is it difficult to dismiss an evolutionary component, such as seeming morality in herding and pack animals, even though that "form" of morality is markedly different from morality in a modern sense. We end up back at the innate / inborn / instinctive status of morality versus the learned / education / legal / institutional religious aspect of morality. The "law written on our hearts" versus the "law written on the books."

This has philosophical implications in the argument about objective versus subjective morality. Inborn morality heavily implies an objective morality, versus legalized morality is certainly socially and culturally subjective.

I hasten to add, this is not an either / or subject, nor is my position in the matter. I can see an elemental objective morality, upon which is built the several subjective moralities.

Morality in an individual context though, is definitely swayed heavily in favor of subjective cultural direction. From the moment we are born, our parents instill in us "right and wrong" in a cultural context. Where they leave off, religion and law take over, with the aid and assistance of the educational system (the "village," so to speak, that "it takes to raise a child."). I can think of no exception; even in the most simplistic "primitive" traditional tribal human culture there are analogies to my statement. I doubt a human could functionally exist in the absence of learned morality, acting solely in the "animal" state of the term. Hence, my conclusions about atheist morality, and how in a hypothetical moral vacuum an atheist would not develop morality "logically." That an atheist's existing morality in this day and age is the result of latent if unrecognized / unacknowledged religious indoctrination. Morality is too often at odds with logic, morality's focus is on the whole of society. The focus of logic is typically on the individual from the individual for the benefit of the individual. Focus on society is at the expense of the individual. Logic as a basis for morality requires a fundamental disconnect that I do not see possible in the typical person, and most certainly not on a regular recurring basis.

 

[Jaiket]

The choice belongs to the individual, on how to act on their genetic predisposition. Genetics is no excuse; legally, rhetorically, socially, philosophically, or morally. Yet, I have heard genetics used to defend the indefensible in every one of these categories.

Of what was a very enjoyable post, Juan, I think this is perhaps the most thought-provoking passage. I couldn't even do justice in type to the many swirling ideas in my head when thinking about this.

I will say though that you won't find me excusing people based on genetics. I suppose I am a genetic determinist in some sense, but I am of the belief that there are choices to be made (I know that appears contradictory), and consequeces to face. I think social class would be a much more reliable predictor of many acts I would deem immoral than genetics - but I wouldn't excuse a murderer on the grounds of poverty any more than I'd excuse a rapist for possessing a Y chromosome.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

Of what was a very enjoyable post, Juan, I think this is perhaps the most thought-provoking passage. I couldn't even do justice in type to the many swirling ideas in my head when thinking about this.

I will say though that you won't find me excusing people based on genetics. I suppose I am a genetic determinist in some sense, but I am of the belief that there are choices to be made (I know that appears contradictory), and consequeces to face. I think social class would be a much more reliable predictor of many acts I would deem immoral than genetics - but I wouldn't excuse a murderer on the grounds of poverty any more than I'd excuse a rapist for possessing a Y chromosome.

Thank you for your kind words. I would be more than happy to entertain those swirling ideas in your head, that is how we both grow.