Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 47
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Jones, Colin and Sinclair Lord, Andrew 2012. Reviving organisational memetics through Cultural Linnæanism. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, p. 349.


    Jones, Colin and Gill, Jameson 2012. An extra‐memetic empirical methodology to accompany theoretical memetics. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, p. 323.


    Dennett, Daniel C. 2011. Homunculi rule: Reflections on Darwinian populations and natural selection by Peter Godfrey Smith. Biology & Philosophy, Vol. 26, Issue. 4, p. 475.


    GARDNER, A. and WELCH, J. J. 2011. A formal theory of the selfish gene. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 24, Issue. 8, p. 1801.


    Garvey, Brian 2011. Darwinism and Environmentalism. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, Vol. 69, p. 67.


    Noble, Denis 2011. Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis and selfish genes: are they of use in physiology?. The Journal of Physiology, Vol. 589, Issue. 5, p. 1007.


    Midgley, Mary 2007. Intelligent Design Theory and other ideological problems. Impact, Vol. 2007, Issue. 15, p. i.


    Duffy, Stephen J. 2005. Genes, Original Sin and the Human Proclivity to Evil. Horizons, Vol. 32, Issue. 02, p. 210.


    Stangroom, Jeremy 2003. Misunderstanding Richard Dawkins. Think, Vol. 1, Issue. 03, p. 87.


    Hedgecoe, Adam and Tutton, Richard 2002. Genetics in Society/Society in Genetics. Science as Culture, Vol. 11, Issue. 4, p. 421.


    Blackburn, Simon 1996. I Rather Think I Am A Darwinian. Philosophy, Vol. 71, Issue. 278, p. 605.


    Holmes, H. Rodney 1993. THINKING ABOUT RELIGION AND EXPERIENCING THE BRAIN: EUGENE D'AQUILI'S BIOGENETIC STRUCTURAL THEORY OF ABSOLUTE UNITARY BEING. Zygon�, Vol. 28, Issue. 2, p. 201.


    Beer, Colin 1992.


    Peacocke, Arthur 1991. CONCLUDING REFLECTION. Zygon�, Vol. 26, Issue. 4, p. 527.


    Grey, William 1987. EVOLUTION AND THE MEANING OF LIFE. Zygon�, Vol. 22, Issue. 4, p. 479.


    Ball, John A. 1984. Memes as replicators. Ethology and Sociobiology, Vol. 5, Issue. 3, p. 145.


    Peacocke, Arthur 1984. SOCIOBIOLOGY AND ITS THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS. Zygon�, Vol. 19, Issue. 2, p. 171.


    Beatty, John 1983. Rationality: putting the issue to the scientific community. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 6, Issue. 03, p. 355.


    Beer, Colin 1983. Minds and machines: Motive for metaphor? a response to boden. New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 117.


    Bennett, Jonathan 1983. Cognitive ethology: Theory or poetry?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 6, Issue. 03, p. 356.


    ×

Gene-juggling

  • Mary Midgley (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100063488
  • Published online: 01 January 2009
Abstract

Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological. This should not need mentioning, but Richard Dawkins's book The Selfish Gene has succeeded in confusing a number of people about it, including Mr J. L. Mackie. What Mackie welcomes in Dawkins is a new, biological-looking kind of support for philosophic egoism. If this support came from Dawkins's producing important new facts, or good new interpretations of old facts, about animal life, this could be very interesting. Dawkins, however, simply has a weakness for the old game of Brocken-spectre moralizing—the one where the player strikes attitudes on a peak at sunrise, gazes awe-struck at his gigantic shadow on the clouds, and reports his observations as cosmic truths. He is an uncritical philosophic egoist in the first place, and merely feeds the egoist assumption into his a priori biological speculations, only rarely glancing at the relevant facts of animal behaviour and genetics, and ignoring their failure to support him. There is nothing empirical about Dawkins. Critics have repeatedly pointed out that his notions of genetics are unworkable. I shall come to this point later, but I shall not begin with it, because, damning though it is, it may seem to some people irrelevant to his main contention. It is natural for a reader to suppose that his over-simplified drama about genes is just a convenient stylistic device, because it seems obvious that the personification of them must be just a metaphor. Indeed he himself sometimes says that it is so. But in fact this personification, in its literal sense, is essential for his whole contention; without it he is bankrupt. His central point is that the emotional nature of man is exclusively self-interested, and he argues this by claiming that all emotional nature is so. Since the emotional nature of animals clearly is not exclusively selfinterested, nor based on any long-term calculation at all, he resorts to arguing from speculations about the emotional nature of genes, which he treats as the source and archetype of all emotional nature. This strange convoluted drama must be untwisted before the full force of the objections from genetics can be understood.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Wilsonian form, see my book Beast and Man (Cornell University Press, 1978; Harvester Press, 1979), Chapters 4–8

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0031-8191
  • EISSN: 1469-817X
  • URL: /core/journals/philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×