The Gene Confusion

Do our genes control us? Some writers give precisely this impression – the biological world is under the thrall of chemical puppet masters known as genes, and we can only overthrow them via a monumental act of willpower. Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976 that "genes have ultimate power over behaviour", but talk of genes for behaviour obscures the biological realities, and we will go quite awry if we fall under the delusion that our own behaviour is beyond our control.

The behaviourist B.F. Skinner mistakenly believed our nature is an infinitely malleable blank slate, others erroneously believe our genes are secretly in control of us, and E.O. Wilson made the incredible suggestion that genetic explanations would "cannibalise" other scientific fields, such as psychology. Wilson's idea that distinct fields of enquiry can all be reduced to more fundamental disciplines may be wildly misguided, but it is not as destructive as ignoring the role of individuals in behaviour. Consciousness cannot simply be abstracted into insignificance, and motives belong to beings with minds, not to self-replicating chemicals.

The story of ethics does involve genes, but they are merely the beginning of the history of morality. The evolution of certain genes has set the stage for the innate capacities of a whole host of organisms, but no gene is a direct cause of behaviour, it is rather a specification for a particular chemical protein. Our bodies are made of these proteins, and certain behaviours can be associated with certain chemicals, but our lives involve more than our bodies and instincts. To complete the moral picture requires considering the history of our conceptions of morality, and even exploring the role of imagining good and evil in fiction, since in human societies, imagination and stories play a far greater role in moral judgement than any gene.

Part 3 of 23 in the Pentenary series.

Comments

[Theo]

On the other hand, think of the possiblities. If there were, say, a set of genes responsible for the melancholy temperament, we could call them blue genes. The potential for bad puns here is almost limitless.

[malene]

I agree that looking at genes alone while excluding all other fields within the human behavior would be a very bad idea. But I guess each "school" will swear to their own theories, even within psychology itself there is a war. Oh the joy, if they would all just start working together!

"To complete the moral picture requires considering the history of our conceptions of morality, and even exploring the role of imagining good and evil in fiction, since in human societies, imagination and stories play a far greater role in moral judgement than any gene."

I am a little confused about this last statement, I hope you can help me out...
What is the connection between the history of our conception of morality and the genes you initially wrote about? I understand and agree, that genes are not solely responsible for our behavior.
I think, but I might be wrong, that the stories of good and evil have been more or less the same throughout history, with only a few changes. And that these few changes has to do with the cultural development, and who has yelled the most and highest in a certain time period.
Pedophiles are the new witches, but the moral is the same.
We have new borders to cross in terms of ethical decisions, but this may merely be due to the level of possibilities rather than a change in moral.

I guess what I don't understand is how can we exclude the genes from the moral judgement based on history of society? Couldn't it simply be the same genes adjusting to new environments? If it is the genes, which I think only plays a part of the whole.

[Chris]

Theo: "If there were, say, a set of genes responsible for the melancholy temperament, we could call them blue genes."

*groans* There should be a law against such puns. ;)

malene: thanks for your thoughtful comment here!

"if [each school] would all just start working together!"

I agree, but sadly the academic world is endemically political, which makes this rather difficult. Of course, it's not just researchers affected by the battle of egos... I suppose it's just part of what it means to be human. :)

"What is the connection between the history of our conception of morality and the genes you initially wrote about?"

Well this is where the serial is going next week, so I think in this regard I might have to say "wait and see". But the short version is: the fundamental primitives upon which morality is built have something of a genetic origin (as is the case with all behaviour) but morality as we understand it as humans enters an entirely new realm with our greater capacity for imagination.

"I think, but I might be wrong, that the stories of good and evil have been more or less the same throughout history, with only a few changes."

Well, you can make a case of this kind, but I think there's a greater diversity in this regard than at first it seems. For instance, modern conceptions of equality and rights had no equivalent two thousand years ago. And go back before the prophet Zarathustra and terms like "good" and "evil" don't apepar at all. So I would have to say there have been significant changes over the millennia.

"We have new borders to cross in terms of ethical decisions, but this may merely be due to the level of possibilities rather than a change in moral."

It's an interesting and pertinent perspective you advance here. I think it may also be relevant that moral philosophy got one of its biggest legs up from the Greeks who were living in a relatively pluralistic society at the time - at least relative to what went before them. The greater numbers of people are trying to live together, the greater the variety of choices and the greater the need to find ways to balance those possibilities in moral thinking.

Today, the rapid advancement of technology in the twentieth century (from which we are still riding out the wash) present thoroughly new moral questions for us which no-one has really had to face before. It may be, as you say, that the fundamental principles of morality are unchanged (Kant would have liked to think so!) - but the practical aspect of the application of morality has definitely experienced major upheavals, and we're still finding our feet in this regard.

"If it is the genes, which I think only plays a part of the whole."

This is definitely the case, and this should come out clearly over the next few parts. The genes are only providing the substructure for moral behaviour - what goes on "above" is far more pertinent to discussion of morality today.

Many thanks for sharing your views!