Why not become a pure reproductive consequentialist?
Reading these posts I notice a preference for altruism, utilitarianism and rejecting some of the intuitions that natural selection gave us. Moreover, almost everyone working on evolutionary psychology takes a lot of effort to avoid the naturalistic fallacy: Not confusing what is with what ought to be (see Richard Dawkins—“The Selfish Gene” or Steven Pinker—“The Blank Slate”).
Still I am wondering what is so “good” about altruism? Knowing that our preference for altruism also developed by natural selection, because it either benefits our genes in other humans (W.D. Hamilton—Kin Altruism ) or leads to reciprocal benefits for ourselfs (Robert Trivers—Reciprocal Altruism ), or it least did in small hunter-gatherer tribes in the ancestral environment. Utilitarianism is now projecting this altruism that we naturally feel towards friends and family (which was good for our genes) onto humanity as a whole (which probably isn’t). Usually there is the assumption that every human life is worth the same.
I agree that you can’t take your values from evolution, but why assume that there are any (objective) values at all? Why not embrace nihilism? Why not become a pure reproductive consequentialist?
Some practical consequences of this value system (some of them pretty weird):
Valuing your family, esp. your children more than strangers (anybody does that intuitively anyway)
Valuing your friends more than strangers (because they reciprocate; people also naturally do this)
Sacrificing your life for your children if that improves their survival more than it reduces your chance for future surviving children (you also see this very often in the real world, fathers drowning to save their children, etc.; Of course you could do the math much better than our adaptation which basically says “save drowning children”)
Switching to full altruism after your chance (or plan) to have future children has fallen to zero. Of course, still caring more about your relatives more than others (grandparents do this a lot, also Bill Gates would be an example)
Ignoring your will to have sex unless you plan to have children or it becomes distracting and reduces your ability to achieve your other goals.
Going to the sperm bank (spreading your genes and getting paid for it. That’s what I call a win-win situation.)
Avoiding fatty and sugary food, following the paleo diet. (to improve your direct fitness and sexual attractiveness)
Not having any higher moral values whatsoever. Following your moral intuitions only when they are useful to other goals.
Basically acting like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street. Only that you would try to turn your money and power into a lot of children, likely from different women. (Like the Aztec or Inca emperors which had thousands of women. Unfortunately for the inclusive fitness of today’s powerful men this has become nearly impossible. It’s better for the average man I guess.)
I am not planning to act out this slightly silly idea in my life. Still I am astonished how well it approximates what people actually do considering the change from our ancestral environment. I would like to hear your thoughts.
Why not become a pure reproductive consequentialist?
Reading these posts I notice a preference for altruism, utilitarianism and rejecting some of the intuitions that natural selection gave us. Moreover, almost everyone working on evolutionary psychology takes a lot of effort to avoid the naturalistic fallacy: Not confusing what is with what ought to be (see Richard Dawkins—“The Selfish Gene” or Steven Pinker—“The Blank Slate”).
Still I am wondering what is so “good” about altruism? Knowing that our preference for altruism also developed by natural selection, because it either benefits our genes in other humans (W.D. Hamilton—Kin Altruism ) or leads to reciprocal benefits for ourselfs (Robert Trivers—Reciprocal Altruism ), or it least did in small hunter-gatherer tribes in the ancestral environment. Utilitarianism is now projecting this altruism that we naturally feel towards friends and family (which was good for our genes) onto humanity as a whole (which probably isn’t). Usually there is the assumption that every human life is worth the same.
I agree that you can’t take your values from evolution, but why assume that there are any (objective) values at all? Why not embrace nihilism? Why not become a pure reproductive consequentialist?
Some practical consequences of this value system (some of them pretty weird):
Valuing your family, esp. your children more than strangers (anybody does that intuitively anyway)
Valuing your friends more than strangers (because they reciprocate; people also naturally do this)
Sacrificing your life for your children if that improves their survival more than it reduces your chance for future surviving children (you also see this very often in the real world, fathers drowning to save their children, etc.; Of course you could do the math much better than our adaptation which basically says “save drowning children”)
Switching to full altruism after your chance (or plan) to have future children has fallen to zero. Of course, still caring more about your relatives more than others (grandparents do this a lot, also Bill Gates would be an example)
Ignoring your will to have sex unless you plan to have children or it becomes distracting and reduces your ability to achieve your other goals.
Going to the sperm bank (spreading your genes and getting paid for it. That’s what I call a win-win situation.)
Avoiding fatty and sugary food, following the paleo diet. (to improve your direct fitness and sexual attractiveness)
Not having any higher moral values whatsoever. Following your moral intuitions only when they are useful to other goals.
Basically acting like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street. Only that you would try to turn your money and power into a lot of children, likely from different women. (Like the Aztec or Inca emperors which had thousands of women. Unfortunately for the inclusive fitness of today’s powerful men this has become nearly impossible. It’s better for the average man I guess.)
I am not planning to act out this slightly silly idea in my life. Still I am astonished how well it approximates what people actually do considering the change from our ancestral environment. I would like to hear your thoughts.