Greetings... and a (potentially) sensitive question!

[Lunalle]

I'm not an expert on genetics by any means, but I do understand your daughter sharing 25% of your wife's brother's genetic stock. However, there is obviously still the need for reproduction to stop the line from dying out (in your example, your wife and the other brother's son). I'm not sure I'm getting my point across, or maybe I'm just not understanding your answer. Perhaps "moral" is the wrong term to use here, in which case I apologize. For clarity's sake, I'm proposing the following argument:

Premise: We, as animals, are merely a protective shell in an attempt at our genes' continued survival.
Conclusion: We are responsible to protect, and continue the existence of our genes, throughout another generation via reproduction. It is not necessarily the end of the genetic line, if an individual fails their responsibility, although it is effectively a "wasted effort".

You (and others) have made it clear that the conclusion is disagreeable (at least from a moral standpoint). I'm curious if the premise is disagreed with as well, or simply the conclusion I've come to, based upon that premise.

[max-greece]

I don't think its disagreeable from a moral standpoint - merely that it is not the sole driver behind existence.

Further I think the idea that someone who doesn't directly breed is a wasted effort doesn't address the role that they might play in ensuring the next generation. My daughter's uncle has spent much time with his nephew and niece and has contributed to their upbringing, in a way that probably contributes to their chances of survival (or would have done in times past).

As for the premise itself I think it is open to question. If the function of life is to continue your specific genetic line, and, through that the survival of the species then we have to ask why so many species fail. As I recall some 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. Some of those managed just a few tens of thousands of years, some hundreds of millions of years. We might regard those that lasted longer as being more successful but only to a point as they did ultimately go extinct.

Its also worth bearing in mind that of the 2% of species currently alive most of those, if not all, will ultimately go extinct. They will, more than likely, be replaced by other species better suited to the environment at the time.

It might be better to attempt to argue that the function of life is life itself. Whatever happens to the individual, or individual species, life continues. As such this would go beyond the concept of genetic inheritance within a species to a continuation of the process of evolution that leads, ultimately, to "better" species (in terms of being better equipped to survive).

Even there one has to bear in mind that entire groups might go extinct involving multiple species so the genetic information from them might be entirely lost. Their contribution might simply be to create a gap in the ecosystem another, totally unrelated species can then evolve into and occupy.

Basically - its probably more complex than mere genetics.

[Lunalle]

Food for thought, thank you!

[pocaracas]

Welcome Lunalle.
Enjoy this little corner of the web.

As for your question... Do you think it's moral for the planet's human population to increase indefinitely?
Let there be childless people. They are not the majority, so they matter little to the overall picture.

[Whateverist]

Welcome aboard oh questioning one. You've probably heard the term "poe", essentially a theist posing as an agnostic and/or atheist for the sake of lampooning the position they allege to hold. I have to admit having my doubts.

On the other hand, I agree that the premise that we are all shells for our genes is ridiculous when taken literally. It is the jump from that to morality and in particular homosexuality which made me suspicious. Christians in particular seem to hold homosexuality dear as their favorite whipping boy.

I am one of the heterosexuals who has chosen not to serve the viral intentions of my genes, if such there be. I rarely think about what the moral thing to do might be, do you? I'm just more on the side of life and the health of the planet. I feel strongly that the planet is becoming a very aesthetically poor place to live owing to our excessive reproduction. As Max mentioned, I nonetheless find utility toward my community through my niece and nephew and my many students. But even that is not something I find satisfaction in owing to morality. Obsessing about what action has the most moral worth, turns an impulse of some value into a narcissistic derail as far as I'm concerned. I find that Christians in particular are prone to that sort of excess.

Okay, that's enough preaching. Have some welcome cookies on me!

[Faith No More]

Premise: We, as animals, are merely a protective shell in an attempt at our genes' continued survival.

The problem that I see is that you are attempting to value humans solely from an evolutionary perspective. Thankfully, we are not constrained by such veiewpoints, and determining what is moral goes well beyond the simple consideration of genes being passed on.

Also, what is moral is not equivalent with what is good for evolution.

Welcome to the forum.

[KichigaiNeko]

Keep questioning

[Violet]

Thanks for your opinions, although the welcome was far from warm... seems like I don't fit in either camp!

Did you want a hug? That's a surprising request.



I bet you blow up just the same as anybody else, regardless of how large you'd have to be to not fit into 'either(?)' camp. Might have to increase the potency of the explosion from standard, though.... larger package, same effect.

Just with a few more fatty bits lying around. A thick skin will do you a great deal more good here than a big belly Welcome to the forums.

---

I did not mean in any way that "maximizing output" was a good thing. Although you could argue that is the only way to maximize the prosperity of our genes, I think that's a discussion of its own.

My question is this: Do we have an obligation to live according to a moral standard, based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes, or our species?

Yes, the only ways to maximize the output of your genes involve... maximizing the output of your genes. I'm glad that we've mastered the rare and ever elusive tautology.

Then that answers your stated question, as it was formed. If you have another question, I would suggest you reformat: revise. I was not the one who used the word 'maximize' to describe the question. If you are discussing 'nonmaximalized' subject matter, you should refrain from using the word 'maximize'

Second quote is for self-reflection. The italicized is to indicate what you're basing your obligation and/or moral standard (pick whichever you want, ends the same damn way). Bold is the acting descriptor of 'prosperity of our genes' (prosperity... I'm still having a chuckle). Again: reformat, revise, reattempt.

One of the things I took from reading Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, is that, from an evolutionary viewpoint, we as humans, are merely a "shell" for our genes. That is the basis for me asking this question. If we are just a shell for our genes, are we not then responsible for the continued survival for our genes? If we are, then does that not lead to certain moral obligations?

To the last question: No. If I have to explain how it *can potentially* 'assist in the having of' <arbitrarily numerous> 'moral' obligations... then I will. However, it is a gigantic waste of time that would require I assist in bringing you to as full an understanding of EVERY SINGLE PART OF THAT as I am able to provide, and I'd really rather not. Go look in the forum elsewhere, somepeople've probably written at least 3000 posts on the damn subject. As an aside, using 'merely' prior to 'shell of ____' doesn't provide you any cool points

One might be responsible for the continued survival of our genes. That's up to whether or not one engages in activities that continue the survival or their genes or not... it's also not a black and white 'X vs Y' grouping, for there is a matter of degrees by which one may be responsible.

An individual who completely cuts themselves away from society, prior to any 'gene survival activities', is NOT responsible in any way for continuing the survival of their genes, or anybody's genes. An individual who engages in mild 'gene survival activities' (such as promoting babymaking without taking the plunge), is mildly responsible for the survival of other people's genes, but is NOT responsible for the continuing survival of their genes. Blame game, you can see where this is going if you have a brain: Genghis Khan.

TLDR: Obligation means 'to be morally (or legally, or really other nonstandard uses would work, but that's semantic) 'bound'. Asking if being obligated to something is to be morally bound is absolutely ridiculous, and deserves to be treated as such.

I'm getting an overwhelming "NO", which is interesting. So I'll leave it at that, but hopefully this clarifies things a bit, and makes the question a bit less strange, and hard to take as real.

I'm impressed: THEY CAN BE TAUGHT! (not you, THEM)

Or you could learn instead of leaving it at that

[rexbeccarox]

Welcome!

My dad was an only child of two only children and three of my great-grandparents were only children. Since my dad died, the only people left in the family are my sister and me. I have never desired kids and my thirty-year old sister isn't showing any signs of wanting them either. The health problems on my dad's side are vast (my dad had multiple strokes from the age of 42 to 59 when he died. He also had lupus. My grandfather had three heart attacks before he died and had kidney problems... and these are just some examples). My mom's side includes cancer and Alzheimer's to name a couple. I actually got pregnant once and the fetus died toward the end of the second trimester. I sometimes wonder if I shouldn't have children because of my family's horrible genetics, and therefore my brain tells me I don't want them. I'm not basing this on science, just a hunch.

My point is, it might be more immoral or irresponsible for me to have children, not the other way around.

[Dena]

My question is this: Do we have an obligation to live according to a moral standard, based on maximizing the prosperity of our genes, or our species?

No. The continuation of the human species isn't a moral obligation. It would be nice for us to persist but I don't think we have any ethical or moral obligation to make our decision based on upon it. We should however make choices based on limiting the suffering of others which can sometimes lead to the same outcome.