Golden Rule

[Pabmusic]

[B]...If that "platinum version" comes from Kant I am afraid that he was - as he usually was - not quite right.

I don't know if Kant subscribed to it, but it's simply a version of the golden rule that is less egocentric than the usual one.

The golden rule almost certainly comes out of genetic pressures rather than philosophy. When we lived in small bands (that is, most of our existence) almost everyone we ever met was a close relative, who carried large amounts of the same genes as ourselves. There were huge advantages to entering into reciprocal arrangements, since we shared the common purpose of passing on the (largely) same genes.* We have lived in settled societies for no more than 12,000 years, so the previous several million years of genetic evolution is still very much with us. Of course, it's very much more complicated than I've indicated, but there has been a huge amount of study done of the genetic origins of morality.

The interesting thing is that similar behaviours have been observed in different species, not just in humans.

*One strand, put into modern terms, goes like this:

We all have our own feelings and desires, all quite similar (since they are based on similar brain chemistry). My own fundamental desire is to pursue happiness and avoid pain and suffering. Other people have similar basic desires that are valuable to them. All else being equal, it is better for people to be happy than not be happy (then they co-operate, which is to be desired in a world where food is hard to get). Conflicts arise mainly because people's individual desires to be happy and avoid suffering conflict with each other's. The goal should be to resolve those conflicts in the best possible way for all concerned.

The very much unspoken subtext would originally have been "these people all share my genes, and I have the best chance of ensuring some of my genes are passed on (by one of us) if I'm co-operative and show empathy and reciprocity".

[Richard Tarleton]

The golden rule almost certainly comes out of genetic pressures rather than philosophy. When we lived in small bands (that is, most of our existence) almost everyone we ever met was a close relative, who carried large amounts of the same genes as ourselves. There were huge advantages to entering into reciprocal arrangements, since we shared the common purpose of passing on the (largely) same genes.*
The interesting thing is that similar behaviours have been observed in different species, not just in humans.

For these small bands it was about resources, necessary for passing on your genes. Tribes of hunter-gatherers lived and in a few cases still live in a variety of situations ranging from exclusive land use (as with some New Guinea tribes described by Jared Diamond in his latest book, which I've given a lukewarm review in the What are you Reading Now thread) through to non-exclusive - Kalahari Bushmen. Other people could be classified as friends, enemies or strangers (Diamond). The corollary of living in a small band or tribe where you know everyone was that you had to consider anyone you didn't recognise as a potential enemy - he describes the various situations that can arise in New Guinea, including where two strangers meeting unexpectedly on a jungle trail have to spend a long time in conversation trying to establish whether they have any kinship ties before having to face the possibility of killing or being killed. In Western society we're constantly dealing with strangers, and these tense situations don't arise in the same way.

[Pabmusic]

For these small bands it was about resources, necessary for passing on your genes. Tribes of hunter-gatherers lived and in a few cases still live in a variety of situations ranging from exclusive land use (as with some New Guinea tribes described by Jared Diamond in his latest book, which I've given a lukewarm review in the What are you Reading Now thread) through to non-exclusive - Kalahari Bushmen. Other people could be classified as friends, enemies or strangers (Diamond). The corollary of living in a small band or tribe where you know everyone was that you had to consider anyone you didn't recognise as a potential enemy - he describes the various situations that can arise in New Guinea, including where two strangers meeting unexpectedly on a jungle trail have to spend a long time in conversation trying to establish whether they have any kinship ties before having to face the possibility of killing or being killed. In Western society we're constantly dealing with strangers, and these tense situations don't arise in the same way.

Absolutely. We've had only about 12,000 years to adapt to a different way of living and, of course, much of this remains with us still. So what we have now is very deep ancient genetics and culture, modified by more complex cultural mores.

[Sydney Grew]

That (reply 16) is an imaginative story, but I hope the member will not be too disconcerted to discover that I can agree with hardly any of it! There are three principal stumbling-blocks:

1) I remain unconvinced of the value of ascribing any importance to anything that is "sub-conscious" or beneath the threshold. People must be fully conscious of and responsible for their actions. It is precisely that which separates us, who do not act by instinct, from the dumb creatures that roam this world. There are still pools of wise men who reject the blatherings of Freud and Jung. I see in this story the words "pressures," "purpose," "behaviour," "feeling," "desire" and "unspoken sub-text" - but the words "logic" and "reason" are oddly absent! Ethics do not evolve through the ages in the same way as hair-colour, say, does!

2) Ancient tribes, cave-men, and the like - even Dr. Johnson - had no concept of a "gene". The word "gene" was invented by Mr. Johannsen, a Northern American, in 1911. So they - the ancients and Dr. Johnson - could not possibly have "shared the common purpose of passing on the (largely) same genes" could they.

3) "Brain chemistry" can never explain the mind and thought. There are many - especially in the Western Hemisphere - who think it can, but they lack a certain power of perception (I was going to write "a certain sense" but the word is ambiguous in a number of ways).

[Pabmusic]

...1) I remain unconvinced of the value of ascribing any importance to anything that is "sub-conscious" or beneath the threshold. People must be fully conscious of and responsible for their actions. It is precisely that which separates us, who do not act by instinct, from the dumb creatures that roam this world...

What separates us from "dumb" creatures is only the relative size of our brains, and even there, some creatures come close (dolphin, octopus). Of course we are responsible for our conscious actions (you don't seem to accept unconscious actions - breathing, for instance?). We do have large brains and we can use them to modify our behaviour. That's what marks us out from many (most?) creatures. That's why we can discuss the sorts of things we are discussing now.

But we do act by instinct in so many circumstances. Have you ever had goose pimples from fright? That's an unconscious, instinctive reaction to make your hair stand on end (ever seen a cat do it? - it makes it appear bigger). Trouble is, we've lost our hair (well, most of it).

2) Ancient tribes, cave-men, and the like - even Dr. Johnson - had no concept of a "gene". The word "gene" was invented by Mr. Johannsen, a Northern American, in 1911. So they - the ancients and Dr. Johnson - could not possibly have "shared the common purpose of passing on the (largely) same genes" could they.

I did not mean to imply a conscious decision to pass on our genes (although I appreciate that you do not recognise unconscious acts). The main driver of all life is a self-replicating sugar molecule, deoxyriboneuclaic acid, or DNA, which appears to exist to copy itself. All life seems to exist to provide mediums for DNA to copy itself. The strong (unconscious) urge of all life to reproduce allows this to happen. We pass on DNA through our genes.

And by the way, Gregor Mendel understood the concept of a gene half a century before Johannsen - he just didn't call them that.

3) "Brain chemistry" can never explain the mind and thought. There are many - especially in the Western Hemisphere - who think it can, but they lack a certain power of perception (I was going to write "a certain sense" but the word is ambiguous in a number of ways).

Happily, you are almost certainly wrong. We know a lot about the workings of the brain, though not all by a long way. It may be comforting to posit some other way of things happening, but the best we can do is to understand just how we formulate thoughts. There has been some very good work done on the nature of 'free' will in the light of what we know about the brain's workings (for instance, we know that signals begin to be passed before we consciously formulate a thought). It has profound implications.

One good thing, perhaps is the more we understand how things happen, the less we are inclined to use expressions like "dumb animals".

[amateur51]

What separates us from "dumb" creatures is only the relative size of our brains, and even there, some creatures come close (dolphin, octopus). Of course we are responsible for our conscious actions (you don't seem to accept unconscious actions - breathing, for instance?). We do have large brains and we can use them to modify our behaviour. That's what marks us out from many (most?) creatures. That's why we can discuss the sorts of things we are discussing now.

But we do act by instinct in so many circumstances. Have you ever had goose pimples from fright? That's an unconscious, instinctive reaction to make your hair stand on end (ever seen a cat do it? - it makes it appear bigger). Trouble is, we've lost our hair (well, most of it).



I did not mean to imply a conscious decision to pass on our genes (although I appreciate that you do not recognise unconscious acts). The main driver of all life is a self-replicating sugar molecule, deoxyriboneuclaic acid, or DNA, which appears to exist to copy itself. All life seems to exist to provide mediums for DNA to copy itself. The strong (unconscious) urge of all life to reproduce allows this to happen. We pass on DNA through our genes.

And by the way, Gregor Mendel understood the concept of a gene half a century before Johannsen - he just didn't call them that.



Happily, you are almost certainly wrong. We know a lot about the workings of the brain, though not all by a long way. It may be comforting to posit some other way of things happening, but the best we can do is to understand just how we formulate thoughts. There has been some very good work done on the nature of 'free' will in the light of what we know about the brain's workings (for instance, we know that signals begin to be passed before we consciously formulate a thought). It has profound implications.

One good thing, perhaps is the more we understand how things happen, the less we are inclined to use expressions like "dumb animals".

Interesting and lucid stuff, Pabs but may I take issue with one point?

How do we explain those of us (not just humans) who do not fit your assertions that "All life seems to exist to provide mediums for DNA to copy itself. The strong (unconscious) urge of all life to reproduce allows this to happen."?

I put my CD collection down to the absence of such an urge in my DNA

[Richard Tarleton]

Ancient tribes, cave-men, and the like - even Dr. Johnson - had no concept of a "gene". The word "gene" was invented by Mr. Johannsen, a Northern American, in 1911. So they - the ancients and Dr. Johnson - could not possibly have "shared the common purpose of passing on the (largely) same genes" could they.

Of course tribal man did not know about genes, but had as strong urge to provide for his kin, which amounts to the same thing. This is why I mentioned the disposition of resources, which is of course what Pab meant. Different norms of behaviour exist/existed in different situations, these being largely determined by the exigencies of the environment.

[Pabmusic]

Interesting and lucid stuff, Pabs but may I take issue with one point?

How do we explain those of us (not just humans) who do not fit your assertions that "All life seems to exist to provide mediums for DNA to copy itself. The strong (unconscious) urge of all life to reproduce allows this to happen."?

I put my CD collection down to the absence of such an urge in my DNA

Point taken, Ams. Simplistic language to describe very complex things, I'm afraid. I suppose you could say that I'm talking in average terms. Any single individual can do anything and have whatever view they prefer, but a group will produce a bell-curve where the majority match the description I gave. And yet even that's not correct, because it implies decisions on the part of individuals; it's more like the average person just matches the description, irrespective of will or conscious desire.

You also have to remember we're probably one of the very few creatures that can analyse this anyway.

Be an individual, Ams.

[amateur51]

Point taken, Ams. Simplistic language to describe very complex things, I'm afraid. I suppose you could say that I'm talking in average terms. Any single individual can do anything and have whatever view they prefer, but a group will produce a bell-curve where the majority match the description I gave. And yet even that's not correct, because it implies decisions on the part of individuals; it's more like the average person just matches the description, irrespective of will or conscious desire.

You also have to remember we're probably one of the very few creatures that can analyse this anyway.

Be an individual, Ams.

As a conscious non-reproducer I find it a fascinating variation - I know many individuals/couples of a variety of persuasions who have chosen not to breed, whereas the notion of sexual attraction seems to me to be unconscious.