Rights vs genetics

[lightgigantic]

Just as a derivative of the few threads about rights, if one is committed to the idea that genetics determines all behaviour, is there any grounds to determine a particular act as really wrong.

I think it boils down to whether one holds that there exists an objective sense to rights.

 

[ogdred]

Or is it a question of free will?

If one accepts (genetic) determinism, then isn't morality in general irrelevant? :shrug: . I think you're right--this doesn't leave any room for a discussion of human rights.

How many people really espouse that opinion, though? I have to admit I haven't read the threads about human rights to which you're referring, but this seems like a rather extreme stance. What I more often see is the assertion that genetics (or/and environment) predispose people to act in certain ways, but the final decision is theirs to make.

Seems to me like the whole objective/relative debate is on an entirely different plane, though.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Genetics plays a key role in the development of any human BUT so does the environment they live in play a very important role as well.

 

[wynn]

Just as a derivative of the few threads about rights, if one is committed to the idea that genetics determines all behaviour, is there any grounds to determine a particular act as really wrong.

Yes, one can say that genetics also determines what behaviors are right and what are wrong. We just have to investigate into the genes enough to find out which is which.



The objection to determinism that you point out exists only if we don't follow determinism through to its conclusions.
The problem with following determinism through to its conclusions is that it hasn't been done yet, so we're left with post-dated rain checks which don't exactly help us in resolving moral issues.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, one can say that genetics also determines what behaviors are right and what are wrong. We just have to investigate into the genes enough to find out which is which.



The objection to determinism that you point out exists only if we don't follow determinism through to its conclusions.
The problem with following determinism through to its conclusions is that it hasn't been done yet, so we're left with post-dated rain checks which don't exactly help us in resolving moral issues.

But if you follow it through like that, it would mean that there isn't anything that is really wrong ... and only the mere appearance of it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Genetics plays a key role in the development of any human BUT so does the environment they live in play a very important role as well.

How does the addition of environment deem an act essentially wrong/right?

 

[wynn]

But if you follow it through like that, it would mean that there isn't anything that is really wrong ... and only the mere appearance of it.

Until the "mystery of the genes" is fully unlocked and revealed, yes.
But until then, we just have to hold our breath, refrain from all moral judgments, and wait until science brings the results in ...
Or at least consider all our moral judgments that we make in this meantime, as relative and potentially invalid.

 

[wynn]

If one accepts (genetic) determinism, then isn't morality in general irrelevant? I think you're right--this doesn't leave any room for a discussion of human rights.

How many people really espouse that opinion, though?

I don't think anyone consistently espouses that opinion, but I think many people espouse it at some point in a debate.

Which suggests there is a particular agenda connected to it - such as making a claim (which so far has not been verified) to win or finish a debate by bringing it to stalemate (and what better way to induce stalemate than to refer to something which is not yet a verified fact?).

Bringing up a claim which so far has not been verified gives its claimant the opportunity to "have the last word", and can as such give them the upper hand in a debate. Which is what anyone in a debate actually wants.

 

[ogdred]

I don't think anyone consistently espouses that opinion, but I think many people espouse it at some point in a debate.

Which suggests there is a particular agenda connected to it - such as making a claim (which so far has not been verified) to win or finish a debate by bringing it to stalemate (and what better way to induce stalemate than to refer to something which is not yet a verified fact?).

Fair enough, I can buy that.

Yes, one can say that genetics also determines what behaviors are right and what are wrong.

How do you see this working, exactly?

The objection to determinism that you point out exists only if we don't follow determinism through to its conclusions.
The problem with following determinism through to its conclusions is that it hasn't been done yet, so we're left with post-dated rain checks which don't exactly help us in resolving moral issues.

Could you clarify "follow determinism through to its conclusions"? To me this looks like accepting the fact that all our behaviors are pre-determined, as the OP suggests.

Until the "mystery of the genes" is fully unlocked and revealed, yes.
But until then, we just have to hold our breath, refrain from all moral judgments, and wait until science brings the results in ...
Or at least consider all our moral judgments that we make in this meantime, as relative and potentially invalid.

I hope you'll explain further how genetics could answer moral questions. Doesn't this lead us directly into the old "is-ought problem"?

 

[wynn]

Could you clarify "follow determinism through to its conclusions"? To me this looks like accepting the fact that all our behaviors are pre-determined, as the OP suggests.

Yes.

I hope you'll explain further how genetics could answer moral questions. Doesn't this lead us directly into the old "is-ought problem"?

No, because determinism presumes that matter is all there is, and that morality as we usually think of it (ie. the one with the is-ought problem or the mind over matter problem and so on), is at most an epiphenomenon.

For the consequent materialist genetic determinist, everything is up to the genes, and that when we think that we think separately from our genes, this is just an illusion. For him, there are also no real moral problems to begin with.

 

[ogdred]

(Emphasis added)

...For the consequent materialist genetic determinist, everything is up to the genes, and that when we think that we think separately from our genes, this is just an illusion. For him, there are also no real moral problems to begin with.

If one accepts (genetic) determinism, then isn't morality in general irrelevant?

Just as a derivative of the few threads about rights, if one is committed to the idea that genetics determines all behaviour, is there any grounds to determine a particular act as really wrong.

Signal, aren't we all basically saying the same shit here then? Genetic determinism = moral questions obsolete. Right?

But before you said that, you said all this...


RE my question "how many people really espouse that opinion?":

I don't think anyone consistently espouses that opinion [genetic determinism], but I think many people espouse it at some point in a debate.

Which suggests there is a particular agenda connected to it - such as making a claim (which so far has not been verified) to win or finish a debate by bringing it to stalemate (and what better way to induce stalemate than to refer to something which is not yet a verified fact?).

RE lightgigantics' post "But if you follow it through like that, it would mean that there isn't anything that is really wrong ... and only the mere appearance of it.":

Until the "mystery of the genes" is fully unlocked and revealed, yes.

And,

...one can say that genetics also determines what behaviors are right and what are wrong. We just have to investigate into the genes enough to find out which is which.

So, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that genetics can solve moral questions, or not? If yes, then how? Simply by demonstrating the baselessness of morality in general (which would, you realize, put you in the genetic determinism camp)? I'm sorry to nitpick, but it seems like you've contradicted yourself a number of times--to the point that I've no idea what you're really trying to say.

 

[wynn]

So, I'm confused. Are you suggesting that genetics can solve moral questions, or not? If yes, then how? Simply by demonstrating the baselessness of morality in general (which would, you realize, put you in the genetic determinism camp)? I'm sorry to nitpick, but it seems like you've contradicted yourself a number of times--to the point that I've no idea what you're really trying to say.

I apologize for the confusion. I was being a bit cynical. I am not a proponent of genetic determinism.

As I said in my first post:

Just as a derivative of the few threads about rights, if one is committed to the idea that genetics determines all behaviour, is there any grounds to determine a particular act as really wrong.

Yes, one can say that genetics also determines what behaviors are right and what are wrong. We just have to investigate into the genes enough to find out which is which.



The objection to determinism that you point out exists only if we don't follow determinism through to its conclusions.
The problem with following determinism through to its conclusions is that it hasn't been done yet, so we're left with post-dated rain checks which don't exactly help us in resolving moral issues.

Genetic determinism is not an actual position, but merely a tentative, potential position. It will be an actual position once they figure out how exactly the genes determine all reasoning and behavior. But this hasn't been done so far.
Yet people argue from genetic determinism anyway.

I think the real problem with genetic determinism is that it is so far merely a tentative, potential position. Trying to reason with someone who presents tentative arguments is confusing and frustrating, to say the least.

 

[quadraphonics]

if one is committed to the idea that genetics determines all behaviour

Who is committed to such a position?

 

[ogdred]

Signal,

Ah ha! It makes more sense now--I misinterpreted your tone.

 

[iceaura]

if one is committed to the idea that genetics determines all behaviour

Idont' know anyone who is committed to the idea that genetics determines all behaviro in flatworms, let alone people.

 

[francois]

Why don't we simplify it and get rid of the word 'genetics' since the question is about determinism anyway. Like spidergoat said, environment is also important, but it doesn't help the argument of free will. The question, if simplified, might as well be "If there is no free will, is there any wrong act"?

To which, my answer would be, Strictly, no, there isn't any wrong act. Strictly, there is no right, wrong, good, bad. Those are human ideas which help us interact with each other and build civilizations. It's just mindstuff, not real, objective stuff, like quazars.