The Selfish Gene debate

--- tags: philosophy, ethics, virtue ethics, anscombe, foot, murdoch, midgley, dawkins, michael sweeney --- # The Selfish Gene debate (draft, Nov 2022) ## Timeline - Mackey's [The Law of the Jungle: Moral Alternatives and Principles of Evolution](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3749875.pdf), 1978. A sympathetic summary of Dawkins. - Midgley's reply [Gene-Juggling](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3751039.pdf), 1979. An attack on Dawkins, mainly based on evidence from ethology that Dawkins missed. - Dawkins, [In Defence of Selfish Genes](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750888), 1981. Dawkins claims that Midgley misunderstands the biological definition of selfishness in his reply to Midgley. - **Midgley, [Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3750771.pdf), 1983. Analysing the language Dawkins uses, Midgley exhibits Dawkins defense as a 'retreat to the motte' (in the sense of the [motte-and-bailey fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy)).** - Stangroom's reply to Midgley [Misunderstanding Richard Dawkins](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/think/article/misunderstanding-richard-dawkins/8288EE0767B0370B6E6839CA557A9C17), 2003. I read Stangroom first and thought he was very convincing. But after reading the other articles above, he just repeats Dawkins without attending to Midgley's arguments. It seems now of interest only wrt the question of how the debate continued (eg why was this paper published at all?). - Have there been more recent contributions to the debate? ## Summary of Midgley's Criticism The following passage from Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" quoted in Midgley's book "The Myths We Live By" captures the essence of what her criticism responds to. - *The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes [...] Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness [...] If you wish [...] to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.* As far as I understand, Midgley's criticism starts from a Wittgenstein inspired analysis of language. "Chicago gangsters" and "ruthless" are not the language of detached and objective science. Is there a hidden agenda? [^hidden] She goes on to say - *that reduction is never value-neutral, never just aimed at simplicity, that it is always part of some positive propaganda campaign.* This is an interesting and possibly controversial claim. Reductionism is a central tenet of the scientific revolution at least since Newton. Moreover, reduction, when possible, is of intrinsic scientific value (Occam's razor, simplification, ...). There is more to explore here ... [^hidden]: In an [interview in the Independent](http://independent.co.uk/incoming/article2977701.ece), reproduced below, she is explicit about what she thinks the hidden agenda is (my emphasis below). Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer Mary Midgley argues that opponents of intelligent design are driving people to accept it. Interview by Nick Jackson Published: 20 September 2007 People are not going to accept scientific fact if they think it is morally pernicious. When people are asked why they are persuaded by intelligent design, they often say that it's the only alternative to scientific atheism and Darwinism which are pernicious moral doctrines; they see it as the only refuge from this anti-human bloody-mindedness. It's at the level of attitudes to life that these choices are made. And people will think scientists as a whole believe this. As Professor Winston has said, science becomes discredited by this kind of stuff. Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) explicitly says that there are no other positions available except for his own and creationism, but these are both highly eccentric positions. Dawkins says that natural selection is the only source of evolution. But Darwin himself said that natural selection was not the only source of evolution. Dawkins dramatises natural selection by the use of the word selfish. He says that natural selection means nature red in tooth and claw, but that's not true. Natural selection means using something that others are not, like photosynthesis or a new food source, and we must not forget that co-operation is often terribly important for survival. **The ideology Dawkins is selling is the worship of competition.** It is projecting a Thatcherite take on economics on to evolution. It's not an impartial scientific view; it's a political drama. It is wrong to link science with this one-sided contemptuous stuff, as if making out that people who disagree with him are idiots. There are many believing scientists. It's very misleading to reduce the debate to this level. Dawkins' idea that religion makes people do appalling things is absurd. *Whatever is the favoured thought system at any time, people doing appalling things use it to justify themselves.* Marxism was used in this way, monetarist ideology is the same. It's all political. When you build it up to cosmic doctrines, you're taking on a much bigger responsibility. Belief does not compete with science; it means different things. Dawkins is very angry with anyone who says there are mysteries, but science cannot answer some questions. We raise all sorts of questions beyond the material world. Then it's understanding we're after rather than information. These are not questions like "is there a box on the table?" but questions of inner life, that can't be settled in the lab. Mary Midgley's Impact Pamphlet 'Intelligent Design and Other Ideological Problems' will be launched with a debate on 3 October at King's College, London (Franklin Wilkins Building, 2pm).