Hi Simon
I thought that was a really interesting article, and your reasoning is valid.

But is it sound? On the one hand, we are liable to error if we import terms from human social emotions, such as selfishness, sympathy and callous disregard, into discussions of genetic processes at the bio-chemical level.

On the other hand, the fact that we may be liable to error by talking of genes in terms of selfishness, does not mean we are actually in error.

If we don’t accept that the brain is an outcome of natural selection, and hold out for a ‘pure’ altruism with no evolutionary basis, then
a) we need to come up with an alternative account of the origin of species, which no-one ever does, and
b) we need to specify the mechanism by which such a pure altruism could arise at cost to the individual organism doing it.

Altruistic behaviour is always a problem for evolutionary theory, and needs to be explained in every case. The Selfish Gene only made this clear, but it was implicit in Darwin’s work.

Evolutionary theory has basically two explanations of altruistic behaviour: kin selection and reciprocity.

Altruism towards *kin* is not really altruism, in genetic terms, if it increases the chances of survival of that particular gene-as-configuration-of-information. It’s like when someone said to the biologist J.B.Haldane “Would you sacrifice your life for your brother?” “No.” he quipped “But for two brothers or eight cousins.” Boomboom. Evolutionist’s idea of a joke.

*Reciprocity* does not explain pure altruism, since from a selfish gene point of view, a) it contemplates a return, and b) it would always be better to *pretend* to reciprocate, rather than to really self-sacrifice. However in a highly social species, such as humans, we would expect there to be a high degree of a) truly mutually beneficial reciprocity, and b) pretension of reciprocity.

In the final analysis, the evolutionists have given reasons for their accounts of selfishness and altruism, but Stoppard has not actually given any reason for his view, or hope, that there is some higher, purer element to altruism.

It is not enough to disprove the evolutionary explanation of altruism (not really altruism), to *introspect* on what we *subjectively* think does *justice* to our *motives*, which is all that Stoppard seems to offer.

Nor can we solve the question by speculations in the abstract, or in general, or at a collective level. Proof or disproof would need a detailed examination of the concrete balance of costs and benefits in each individual case, which of course Stoppard does not offer, since he's thinking at the abstract and general level. Often people who seem to be altruistic have their own self-regarding motive, and often people who are purely altruistic are doing it at unsustainable cost to their reproductive success. All this would need to be taken into account.

Both Stoppard and you hold out for what we may call pure altruism.

“At this level, we most definitely are able to be altruistic un-hypocritically: we are doing what we think/feel is right. “
I think that only begs the question as the origin of the brain hardware, and the mode of consciousness, to think/feel that? It is not a self-sufficient explanation.

If pure altruism is at cost to the individual, then that is a problem in terms of evolutionary theory, and needs to be explained, which you haven’t done.

“To think, for example, that altruism is cheapened by the likelihood that it is a pro-survival characteristic for our group in evolutionary models is in my view to unnecessarily erode our feelings of self-worth, and those of our culture, on the basis of a blatant category error.”

Not really clear what you’re driving at here.

Are you saying that, if an act of altruism has an underlying evolutionary rationale and pay-off, it is cheapened, because not ‘pure’ altruism? What are you saying is or may be a category error?

Simon - you say: "Genes . . . cannot intend anything. . . . Genes as entities are entirely passive, participating in physiological processes which are driven by physico-chemical properties of the complex molecules involved."

But then in ther next sentence you say that genes "cooperate"!

I would agree with the first comment that genes don't do anything intentionally.

However, you seem to think that human beings do act intentionally. What is that enables the human being to act intentionally, to have a free will, that the genes lack?

If we have no free will then there is no altruism, intention or selfishness: everything happens the way it does simply because of the laws of physics acting on matter and nothing could be any other way than what it is,

At the brain's level, whether or not the brain recommends and directs our body towards altruistic behaviour - is a purely scientific question which should therefore be resolved by scientific methods.

We are however still at choice whether to listen to that gene-driven brain and blindly accept its recommendations, or to scrutinise them if we can - and in case we cannot do so and override its control over our body, whether to still associate ourselves with such a brain that operates inappropriately against our spiritual well-being.

"He is an atheist who does not believe in himself." - Swami Vivekananda, http://www.swamivivekanandaquotes.org/2014/10/who-is-atheist.html

If people can't see by now that the heart of man is wicked and selfish from birth then they must walk around blindfolded and more than likely have never done any self examination. The idiotic dogma of evolution has taught that we are evolving into more moral beings. The reality is that the more godless we become the more we kill the unborn, give the poor our crumbs and act more self righteously than ever before. ISIS at least has an excuse with its warped religion. Secularism really has no excuse as they have thrown reason out of the window and replaced it we all kinds of pseudo sciences.

Simon Mundy seems to be getting his knickers in a knot about the idea of behaviour being lone gene specific. He objects to people referring to "selfish" genes and "altruistic" genes.

Human behaviour is a product of nature and nurture. By "nature" we mean genetics. Simon may be correct in saying that there are no specific genes for behaviour, but combinations of genes must exist which exert a very strong influence on their hosts behaviour. Within all societies, it has been recognised by the various jurisdictions that there are a very small number of people who are extremely violent. Such people are repeat offenders and they get little sympathy from courts unless they appeal to the court about their inability to control their behaviour, accept that they have a problem that they can not control, and accept whatever medical treatment medication that doctors proscribe.

Criminal behaviour can be seen as extreme selfishness and it definitely has a genetic basis. The fact that genetics has a very significant role in behaviour can be understood when it is remembered that 95% of prison inmates are male. Not just male, but usually young males. Criminals seem to "grow out" of their violent and selfish tendencies at around 40 years of age.

Altruism is probably has a very strong genetic base, as sacrificing yourself for your group benefits your closest genotypes survival prospects. But nurture is also very important. Martyrs, war dead, and heroes are exulted in all cultures. And if the culture you grew up in praises Kamikazes or suicide bombers as the most wonderful examples of people's heroes, then you can bet that young men will seek the approval of their peers by committing the ultimate act of altruism, and kill themselves to destroy their people's enemies.

No, there may be no specific genes for selfishness or altruism, Simon, but there is nothing wrong with referring to genetic induced behaviour as if there was. It is simply grammatical shorthand, like calling penguins, ostriches, and crows, "birds."