Subject: 
            Re: [evol-psych] Huxleyan dualism of Dawkins and EP
       Date: 
            Wed, 13 Feb 2002 08:58:29 -0500
      From: 
            Herbert Gintis 
        To: 
            David Wolpert 
        CC: 
            Larry Arnhart , [email protected]
 References: 
            1




At 04:18 PM 2/12/02 -0700, David Wolpert wrote:

  I have to disagree with all of these anti-Dawkins sentiments.

  Please, let us not fall for the naturalist fallacy! We must distinguish
  between normative morality - how, based on logic and reasoning, we
  determine that we *should* behave - from empirical morality - how, based
  on natural selection, we *do* behave. The latter is the province of EP,
  the former of ethics and philosophy.

  Dawkins simply points out that the two are not identical. This strikes me
  as almost tautological.

        This is indeed tautological, but this is not what Dawkins says. He says  ``We are survival
machines---robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." This
is quite correct, as far as we know, and if not tautological, at least perfectly in according with
evolutionary theory. But then he says (all quotes are from The Selfish Gene) "This gene selfishness will
usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior." This statement is accurate, given what we know
about the constitution of the biological world, although it has nothing to do with the previous statement.
The kicker, however is the following: "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born
selfish." This is false, I would argue, and certainly a non-sequitur. False, because there is now ample
evidence that human altruism goes well beyond what would be predicted by inclusive fitness and
reciprocal altruism. A non-sequitur because the fact that most species are "selfish" does not imply that
any particular species is "selfish." 
        Noone suggests that the moral behavior  handed down to us by natural selection cannot be
improved upon through cultural evolution and by the use of our "big brains."  But the dualism
natural/moral, sustained by many ev psychers, has no empirically supportable foundation in
evolutionary theory.

Best,

Herb