Where are the genes in a 'spiritual life' after biological death? Does afterlife require genes? If 'feelings/emotions/consciousness' are at the center of biological life, single genes will not do the job alone.

Where are the genes in a 'spiritual life' after biological death? Does afterlife require genes? If 'feelings/emotions/consciousness' are at the center of biological life, single genes will not do the job alone.

Some people might claim that 'genes' reflect 'karma'

What is the moral context which Dawkins evokes?  Surely not Abrahamic religion. A religious respect for the Darwinian evolutionary scale? This is tantamount to deifying science or scientific theory, a human invention.  By this twisted logic he justifies the termination of Downs Syndrome pregnancies.  While convinced that a fetus does not become a person until the third week, I am not convinced that Downs Syndrome babies lack personhood.  The most convincing proof is the genuine parental love that such babies inspire in their progenitors.  I do not believe in the crude formula "baby-killers" applied to couples who terminate any unwanted pregnancies. But I do believe in respecting life in the form of Downs Syndrome children.

I agree with Marcel. A single gene will not do the job alone.

Evolutionary selection is based on the individual or the expression of all the genes. One gene may produce the evolutionary advantage for selection, but it is the individual that survives to pass on that gene. The gene does not selfishly strive for replication, the biological environment allows the individual to survive.

Dawkins' idea of a moral obligation may apply to his ethics. His ethics might correctly apply to biological ethics (selection advantage). There is a problem and danger from any one person or committee deciding what is biologically ethical. Aborting a Down's Syndrome fetus is socially acceptable in some communities. Is this evolutionary and biologically ethical?

Mr. Álvarez,

What is socially acceptable in some communities by no means ethically justifies an act. In some African communities female castration is socially acceptable. In some Asian communities mere suspicion of marital infidelity justifies wife-murder.  Ergo....

Richard Dawkins Apologizes for Saying Couples Should Abort Down Syndrome Babies, Try Again!

Fine reading about What will life be like for a child growing up with Down syndrome! "Give your family, friends, and neighbours some time to learn about Down syndrome, reminding them if necessary that it's just a small part of who your child is and will become."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-apologizes-for-saying-couples-should-abort-down-syndrome-babies-try-again-125226/

http://www.babycenter.com/0_welcoming-babies-with-down-syndrome_1817.bc?showAll=true

@Nelson

Was this an answer to my question,"Is this evolutionary and biologically ethical?" Or were you assuming I approved of wife murder?

A more general philosophical question might be: What is the relationship between what people call 'a handicap' and what people call 'exclusion', whatever their context

Examples:

I am handicapped because I do not know the details in Physics and therefore excluded to get a job in Physics.

I am handicapped because I do not speak Chinese and therefore excluded to teach Chinese.

I am handicapped because I do not have the condition to be top athlete and therefore excluded from top sports.

Are handicaps at the basis or a cause of biodiversity?

Joseph,

Of course I never supposed your approval of wife murder. I just meant that social acceptance is a weak ethical justification in my judgment.  Uxoricide was intended as a strong (but absurd) example. 

Nelson

I in no way said social acceptance was an ethical justification. I stated it as fact.

Thus there is a difference between an 'observation' (e.g. defined as a fact) and the approval/rejection of its interpretation

Yes, Joseph and Marcel, the difference does exist between an observation and a value judgment of that observation.  In a recently published book, I needed to use Volksgeist theory (the notion of each nation as a creative principle) as a basic premise. However, one reader of my manuscript accused me of espousing that principle (just as the Nazis had espoused it to justify genocide).  In a footnote, I explained that I used Volksgeist theory merely as a pedagogical tool WITHOUT espousing it (and while finding the Nazi perversion of the principle abhorrent).  So I accept, Joseph, that you used social acceptance as a fact with no justification attached. Thanks for the clarification.

Dear All,

This is a purely ethical question as most of our discussions here.

Ethical rules are formed in societies and they are influenced by material and immaterial factors. In case of Down syndrome material factors are the charges and efforts needed for curing and caring for such children. Immaterial factors are the love and sentiments provided by the parents.

The question is how much is the contribution of the state for caring these children. If officially the charges are assessed to high the society as an executive power does not prefer these costs. However, society used to respect human life and human sentiments and it help the surviving of handicapped humans. As Marcel put it earlier the acceptance of such people depends on the society (cultural, philosophical backgrounds, religion, economic situation and certain customs and conventions which are results of historical development). The question is who is right to decide on the fate of such children. In Hungary –according to our historical and ethical backgrounds as well as our economic situation – parents have right to decide.

An example: Generally, parents are responsible for their children and most of them try to do their best for a child. In the Soviet Union when Stalin has had cereals collected by force in Ukrainian villages and millions of people starved to death occurred that mothers threw their babies on open goods wagons travelling in transit in order to save them. What happened in that time: the soviet power because of political (?) aims did not respect human life and parents gave up their children and risked their life in case of emergency.

This is not a question on a gene this is a universal human rule on respecting human life and to help saving even handicapped companions. This is an ancient ethical rule because human groups could survive but collectively which means that this behaviour worked in practice. Certainly, respecting this rule changed according to the special historical and economic situations. When Ottoman Turks hunted Hungarians in the occupied Hungarian Kingdom many people abandoned their babies and saved only the older children because these children were economically more important and valuable than the smaller ones. This means that ethical rules can be limited economically.

Questions: Where are the economic limits of caring a Down syndrome child?

How efficiently do ethical laws operate?

Richard Dawkins is a self obsessed demagogue.  He claims to stand on a platform of reason when dismissing religion but adopts the same dogmatic approach that zealots do.  For a secularist to advocate aborting children for the sake of convenience while calling it morality is utterly ridiculous.

Dawkins is a great scientist but that was never an indicator of either common sense or morality. 

The aspect of this story that impresses me most, is the use - in my opinion extreme and aberrant - of the authority of Science.

First, a relevant judgment about the morality of —  I would say — the fundamental one among the humanity's choices, i.e. to give life or to abort it, is reduced in a simple assertion: "Don't do it". No arguments at all: an almost dogmatic assertion.

Not even the pope does nothing like this, by now. And the terrorists of ISIS accompanied their recent abominable "gift" [to a poor family] with an email of explanation.

Secondly, this trenchant judgment falls like an ax. And it chose to come through a medium, I would say, frivolous and superficial: a Twitter chirp.

What results is a monstrous opinion — monstrous because unrecognizable and without reasons.

Is this Science?

What did you expect, Mr. Dawkins? That after your "enter" everyone would rush to read your 12 books, as well as hundreds of publications, in order to "contextualize" your statement? It's crazy.

What happens today, reading a bit 'of the international press, is simply the following:

"…And now we come to Science. A famous scientist, indeed the greatest thinker of the century, Prof. R. Dawkins, believes that the birth of a child with Down's syndrome is humanly wrong; and that parents who choose to achieve it, are immoral".

Here's what it is.

Then: can the scientific community accept this adolescent [much more than a simply "popular"] use of the  scientific dissemination? Or we want to reduce it to a mere "personal opinion"?

—g

"…And now we come to Science. A famous scientist, indeed the greatest thinker of the century, Prof. R. Dawkins, believes..."

It is a matter of superlative indifference what Prof. Dawkins believes.  Belief is irrelevant in science and in ethics.  The belief of a person however distinguished they may be in scientific circles matters only in as much as it can be verified by others.

Linus Pauling might also be included in the "greatest thinkers of the 20th century", whatever that qualification means.  He won two Nobel prizes and was undoubtedly a brilliant scientist.  He was also a dangerous ideologue who advocated against all scientific knowledge that supper massive doses of vitamin C could cure a multitude of diseases, including cancer.

Although he lived to a ripe old age he died of cancer. i.e. he had advanced prostate cancer which caused his death.  His wife had also died of cancer and unfortunately so did many other people who believed the nonsense he propagated about vitamins.

The moral is that however 'famous' the scientist it does not stop them being idiots in all other respects. 

I see, but I don't agree, in principle. The fact is that an inverse and controversial phenomenon is running on the social networks, similar to SIR mechanisms for spread. Two kinds of "contagion" are relevant in the current epoch: the very visible and the very sneaky ones. An example for the former typology, is the ice bucket initiative — something so viral that we could consider its paradigm as "definitive", and crucial for the social networking 4.0 [Epidemic-like process for contents: relevant/fresh + attractive/contagious + convenient/efficient + emotional/depressive]. For the latter, Dawkins' statement(s) is perfect — and ours [our loose reaction] too: the message rises vertically as an aerostat balloon through some atmosphere heights of the global consciousness, than suddenly disappears. It will gravitate over our heads, out of the critical control.

Obviously I agree: it was a personal opinion, not verified at all, and "not representative" — in classical scientific terms.

—g