The Selfish Gene: Introduction

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 1- 20

Nov. 13, 2007

7:48 P.M.

Biology, Zoology, and Some Misinterpretation:

......As I read Chapter 1 I realized I really didn't know the difference between the two, and I soon learned knowing it was essential as Dawkins usually compares them. While reading I came to the conclusion that they had to be very different things; however, now that I look at the definitions, zoology just seems a branch of biology. According to Wikipedia, zoology is the "biological discipline which involves the study of animals," while Biology is the "scientific study of life." However, my conclusion came from Dawkins own interpretation of what zoology is. "Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance (p. 1)." Dawkins recurs to studies referring to zoology in order to form his own conclusions about human and animal behavior. In my opinion he is completely misinterpreting the whole purpose of zoologists, though. I think zoologists are supposed to study the facts, not meddle with opinions and bias. I am not necessarily saying I disagree with his arguments, but Dawkins completely mixes opinions with facts. By manipulating the definition of zoology in order to get his point accross, Dawkins takes some credibility away from his work. This different interpretation will probably make his point harder to prove, but not impossible.

.

Are Humans Altruistic or Selfish?

......This question can be viewed from many different perspectives. Even if I don't agree with his interpretation of zoology, I have to agree with what Dawkins argues with respect to this question. We are altruistic when our reputation is on the line or when we have to put up a facade infront of others (like when we are taking part in an active role of society), yet, deep inside we are all very selfish. As a society we are very giving and altruistic. We want to fight for a common good and we are willing to sacrifice in order to attain this. But, if it wasn't for everyone else fighting for the same cause, then we wouldn't be willing to give up anything for any common good. One example that Dawkins used was the comparision between abortion and the killing of animals. "A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee (p. 10)." Dawkins argues that we care about an amoeba-like fetus that has no feelings and we provide them with certain rights and protection; however, an animal that is fully capable to understand and to feel doesn't even have the right to live. I had never seen that perspective, and as shocking as it was, it is very true. We care more about what looks good in society's eyes than what is actually good. We would rather bring an unhappy and abused child into this world, than protect the happiness of a lion pup. How ironic is that? What if all we think is right is actually wrong? I really think that humans need to start reevaluating morality, what's right, and even more important what's wrong.