Some animals are considered opportunistic when taking advantage of others’ naïve beliefs: In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins explains how “whenever a system of communication evolves, there is always the danger that some will exploit it for their own ends” (65). This means that if a flower takes advantage of the feromones a bee searches in his mates, to spread pollen, it is the gene’s fault. The gene is the selfish one. The plant is simply carrying out a programmed set of instructions.
If a person were to do a similar thing, for example by tapping into a telephone wire or manipulating someone, they are blamed, not their genes. Maybe it is the fact that humans can choose to not be selfish that makes being selfish so scornful. We don’t think of manipulative animals as unethical at all, but rather opportunistic and just. Everyone does what they need to survive. They have no other choice. Humans, on the other hand, do, which means that any effort to take advantage of a situation that involves the demise of another is preposterous. Having the choice to override some of our selfish instincts imposed by our selfish genes has granted us the freedom to be altruist. The question is: Will we succumb to our animal instincts or think rationally as a human should do?
In response to this analysis, we come to the philosophical assumption that defines selfishness. Is it selfish if there’s no other choice? If that may be the case, then we’re the only selfish beings on Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment