Richard Dawkin’s selfish gene theory, portrays the idea that the higher two or more individuals are genetically related, the more logical it is for them to interact selflessly with one another. Under Dawkin’s theory, the assistance from a homosexual sibling nurturing a heterosexual sibling’s child can be supported by the selfish gene theory, because the two siblings would have similar genetics and the offspring of one sibling would as well inherit the corresponding gene from the other sibling. Together, both siblings would follow the theory and its prominent proposition of implementing actions that in final results would help the survival of their family genes. The action of taking care of the next generation accomplishes this intention. Those
Many parents do in fact have desires related to their children that with sex selection could come to fruition, however using a child solely as an end seems unreasonable . Savulescu argues that if parents “love their child as an end itself” that any other desires, such as a father wanting a male child because he loves boys that play sports, that sex selection could facilitate would do no harm since it is ok for some of the “means” of having a child to be fulfilled.
In Richard Dawkins book “The Selfish Gene,” he writes about how Darwin was the first person to develop a theory as to how evolution occurs, the issues of the beginning of life, and the double immortal helix of DNA.
As science becomes ever more sophisticated in the coming years, it is becoming harder and harder to determine what is ethically right and wrong. One particular, quite recent event is the “saviour siblings” controversy. Saviour siblings, according to the Cambridge English Dictionary, is “a child who is born with particular genes that have been chosen in order to treat an older brother or sister who has a disease.” This particular topic of discussion was started by the author, Jodi Picoult, who wrote “My Sister’s Keeper”. It is a story about a young girl, born to be her older sister’s saviour sibling, seeking medical emancipation. This book explores the ethics of being a saviour sibling, highlighting the fact that saviour siblings
In not being a science major, or really having much interest in science at all it was difficult for me to fully immerse myself into this subject. I was under the impression that the only idea of evolution was that of forward progress, the one that we all see in advertisements and on Google when you type in “evolution”. In stark contrast to this idea of evolution, Stephen J Gould presents a less restricted idea of evolution. He left some of the decision up to chance and showed this theory by discussing it within the Cambrian Burgess Shale. More specifically, there are two main themes represented in this book by Stephen J Gould: showing evolution as a ladder or cone, and if it were possible to “replay the tape of evolution” the results would be considerably different and specifically that humans may not come out of that result.
In Panopticism by Michel Foucault, Foucault discusses the measures to be taken when the plague appeared in a town. He talked in death about the abnormal individuals that were stricken with the plague and the individuals were lepers and excluded from society. Strict partitioning occurred during the plague, the towns closed and individuals who attempted or left the town were sentenced to death. Stray animals were killed and the town was divided into districts that were governed independently. The syndic was in charge of the quarantine and would walk around to lock the door of each house form the outside (Foucault 282). The plague resulted in a need for order and aimed for a disciplined community. It was important, at this time, to measure and supervise the abnormal individuals. Anyone could become sick and become abnormal. And in this case, abnormal was extremely dangerous to other individuals in the community. Also separated from society were lepers. The leper gave rise to rituals of exclusion (Foucault 284). The aim of separating the lepers was to create a pure community. There was ...
Dawkins, who offers an explanation of this seemingly high-convoluted behavior in terms of a simple “evolutionary game theory”. This theory is especially relevant for this essay in terms of how politics can be understood scientifically as it implies that all human interaction and behavior is highly predictable. Political science is just syntactic sugar for “people interacting with other people”; that’s all it is really. Dawkins says that our actions are mainly determined by our genes and we make decisions based on how well that decision will allow our genes to propagate in the gene pool. It is all so simple that it seems reasonable to believe that with a good enough understanding of genetics, we can also understand politics. The notion of our behavior being reduced to a game theory scenario also strongly implies that there is a mathematical quality t¬o how humans make decisions. If
The theory of social darwinism was first introduced to the public[1] in “A Theory of Population, Deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility”, an article by Herbert Spencer published in 1852. This work preceded the publishing of Darwin’s book by seven years, and “given the timing, it is curious that Darwin’s theory was not labeled ‘natural Spencerism’ instead of Spencer’s theory being labeled ‘social Darwinism.’”[2] Spencer’s article, though mainly focused on biology and the ways in which animal populations develop, does include an inkling of the social ideas he would later more fully examine. His main theory of population deals with survival of the fittest, a phrase he coins in this a...
Modern technology has provided families the free choice and ability to abort a fetus that they feel is not the the proper one for their lifestyle. These opportunities are present so that the offspring they create is one born with equal opportunity, and one that will be loved and taken care of fully; as is the ethical obligation of a parent. It is ultimately up to a parent whether or not they will bring a child into the world provided that they stay within the law when doing so, but this response will address the ethical criteria under which parents choose to do so. Dawkins feels that if a fetus with something such as Down Syndrome (DS) is brought into the world, not only would it not be loved properly, but it would not be given a life on equal
In this essay I will discuss that I do not agree with Richard Dawkins and will prove this by using the theory of Intelligent Design as to why I do not agree with him.
Richard Dawkins is one of those men who people will be discussing for many years to come. A Google search for the fellow turns up countless results, with numerous postings created concerning Dawkins within the last thirty days. Of course, this is to be expected from a man with a Twitter account, who in an instant can relate his airport carry-on luggage woes (Mangan, 2013). Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1941. After earning his doctorate at Berkeley in 1967, Dawkins was appointed an Assistant Professor of Zoology there. Dawkins’ tenure at Berkeley was brief though, as he ultimately returned to his alma mater of Oxford in 1970 as a fellow at New College (Richard Dawkins Biography, n.d.). Numerous scholars attempt to make the jump from academia to mainstream culture and fail; Dawkins was successful in that regard. In 1976 Dawkins published his first book, The Selfish Gene, which has been reprinted in subsequent editions. Dawkins has since published numerous books and speaks regularly across the world. According to Dawkins, one of his greatest influences was Charles D...
Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and used the term natural selection to describe it. He proposed that all living species derived from a common ancestor. In On the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin explained: “if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principles of inheritance, will then tend to produce offspring similarly characterised” (p127).
The metaphor behind Dawkins' theory can best be described by his opening statement: "we are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (Barlow 193). Dawkins links the natural behavior of unconscious bunches of nucleic acid (genes) to human behavior and personality by calling them "selfish." His use of this term conjures up the image of a separate individual, capable of making decisions to help its own good and disregarding our needs. By calling human beings "survival machines" and "robots," Dawkins suggests some serious moral implications regarding our existence. If we were just robots, it would seem that we would be no longer responsible for our actions, as people could attribute all evil to the gene programmers who created these robots. Also, if our primary purpose were to serve as a "survival machine" for something else, life would seem insignificant. John Maynard Smith writes that Dawkins' book is just about evolution, and "not about morals . . . or about the human sciences" (195). However, the attempt to disengage the selfish gene theory from its moral implications is seriously undermined by Dawkins' metaphors.
In just the last 50 years, gay marriage and more specifically, homosexuality, has made great strides in social reform. For example, as of May 2014, 18 states in the United States have legalized same-sex marriage with some other states allowing same-sex unions. The main issue during these last 50 years is the debate between fundamentalists and scientists who argue the controversial debate of nature vs. nurture. Some fundamentalists argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Conversely, some scientists argue that homosexuality is biologically-determined in the womb due to genes or hormones. Moreover, research conducted by the journal Science and other sources will be examined within this paper that denotes that homosexuality is biologically-determined. This paper will argue that homosexuality is natural. The crux of the issue is that homosexuality is natural due its biological roots and ancestry in humans and animals.
...s blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (Dawkins vii). By calling human beings "survival machines" and "robots," Dawkins implies that we are not in control for our own actions. Again, his metaphors takes the reader away from his scientific reasoning and make them think of a distinct individual that is pulling the strings of evolution for its own good. This statement also conjures up moral implications that suggest that we are not in control of our lives and there is no point for our own existence. The point Dawkins wants to make is that metaphorically genes do possess a selfish ability. However, Dawkins' metaphors make it difficult to remove the selfish gene theory from its moral implications.
Homosexuals adopting and having children has been a hot topic for debate over the past couple of decades. It is a topic in which many people have very strong moral and ethical beliefs about. The main focus of many of these debate centers around the children to be adopted by homosexual parents. People apposed to the idea of homosexuals adopting and parenting children may not just be apposed to the idea of homosexuals have the right to be parents but may be more concerned for the well being of the child. This is not irrational to worry about the children in this situation because we want the children to have the best lives possible. But are there any justifications to thinking homosexual parents are any worse than traditional heterosexual parents? In this paper I hope to analyze the differences of being raised in a homosexual family versus being raised in a traditional family and see if really matters if you parents are homosexual.