Genetics, nature, and morality
I recently read an article in the New York Times about how our sexual desires are largely genetically determined. An interesting article, and worth a read – but be careful what you read into it.
A line of thought I have heard goes something like this: “Sexuality is genetic/natural; therefore, we ought to do what we are naturally predisposed to do.” This is a convenient argument, perhaps, if you’re trying to justify doing whatever you want. It isn’t good reasoning, though.
Maybe I can highlight the fallacy as follows: I am a naturally selfish person. Not sure if this is in my genes, but it is definitely an inseparable part of who I am. Imagine what would happen if I did what I was naturally predisposed to do. If someone was in line in front of me at the grocery store, I could shove that person out of the way so I could go first. If I wanted to do well in a class, I could sabotage the other students somehow so they would do worse and the curve would favor me. These examples, while morally revolting, are fairly tame compared to some of the possibilities of what would happen if we really followed our nature. (Man rapes woman. Why not? Seeking sexual pleasure is natural. Man holds up store, murders cashier to get money to buy drugs. Why not? The desire for pleasure is natural. Gotta do what it takes to fill that desire.)
To say that we should do what is natural for us ignores the obvious fact that our nature is really, really corrupt. It removes the idea that we are responsible for our actions and replaces it with sort of a fatalistic view that we are completely determined by our genes. It is not only incorrect; it’s extremely dangerous. Imagine if we thought this way about everything!
What I’m getting at is that the connection between genetics and sexuality implies absolutely nothing about the connection between morality and sexuality.
1 comment April 27th, 2007
