The Philosophical Dilemmas and Logical Contradictions in Political and Scientific Ideologies

By Edwin L. Young, PhD

Genetics is taking the place of "West Side Story’s" ‘Social Disease’ and throwing a kink in the age old rivalries between conservatives and liberals’ with respect to their preferences for explaining criminal behavior and poverty and their recommendations for what to do about these problems. Pop science is rushing to put genetics in the spotlight in the media. Conservative media outlets seem to be pushing shaky genetic explanations for practically everything imaginable. Even the prestigious "Economist" (June 2005 issue) has signed on to the fad by publishing summaries of studies with bannered headlines and specious conclusions that are completely and irresponsibly misleading about the role of genetics in human behavior.

Francis Crick, the famous geneticist and cowinner of the Nobel Prize for discovering the Double Helix structure of DNA, in a PBS Book Review Special shortly before his death, ballyhooed these tabloid claims of recent flimsy genetic studies.

The typically under-informed, pseudo-expert journalists who are touting these claims are, I suspect, unsuspecting of the philosophical and logical conflicts that this new wave is generating for the conservative camp. Riding the crest of the strong appeal of highly conditional genetics’ findings, these science reporters are propelled straight into the rocky shoals of logical absurdity. Courts are the principal arena in which their claims are being put to the test and they are almost universally found to be without logical, juridical, or scientific merit. Nevertheless, their logical contradictions point up valuable questions for public policy and social issues. Here are some old political clichés being confronted by the new Pop versions of genetics and causing havoc with traditional stands on social issues and public policy.

Conservatives typically want genetics to be 1a) the causal explanation for criminal behavior and poverty but also 2a) for their own success and superiority. 1a) Poor people and criminals are purported to be genetically inferior and hopeless and 2a) the rich are genetically superior and deserving of their good fortune. 1b) Contrariwise, conservatives want people such as criminals and the poor to accept responsibility for their own behavior. Also, 2b) contrariwise, conservatives believe that they are responsible for their own success; they are self made success stories. Do you see the problem with these incompatible positions? 1) Poor people are poor and criminals are criminals because of their genes, their genetic determination, and yet 1b) they are still responsible for their own condition and behavior. 3) These problems are not caused by their life conditions nor is it society’s or the environment’s fault. The conservatives refrain is that deviance is not a "Social Disease".

On the other hand, the rich are rich 2a) because of their genes but, at the same time, 2b) they are self-made and they themselves and their strong will and character are the sole cause of their success and wealth. 3) Their success is not caused by their environment, life conditions, socio-economic status, and privilege. The advantages of their position in society were not the cause and did not pave the way for their success. They are solely responsible for their good fortune. Some of the wealthy even believe poverty is god’s punishment for being evil and wealth god’s reward for being good.

Many rich believe ‘god’ rewards them with wealth for being such good people. Conversely, poverty and misfortune must be god’s punishment for being a bad or lazy person. This stance has an unnoticed problem with explaining the rich, upper-class, white-collar criminal. Equally supportive of the conservative position yet containing an equally unnoticed problem is the contention that that one person born into poverty that ultimately achieves success and wealth just proves that all of the other poor lacked the character and will power to climb out of the ghetto and up the ladder of success. These exceptions to the premises of the ‘haves’ have grave weaknesses. Their contention citing the exceptions of ghetto successes hardly supports the belief in the near universal genetic inferiority of the poor just as the exception of the white collar criminal does not disprove their argument concerning the near universal genetic superiority of the rich.

Does anyone see a philosophical dilemma or logical contradiction in these beliefs regarding the contradictory claims of genetic versus social causation? Do you see a flaw in the claims about the ‘will’ and the triumphs or failures of the will being due to good or bad character and strong or weak will? Does it seem a bit self-serving to discount the effects of the structure of society seen so clearly for the destiny of those ‘born to the manor’ versus the fate of those born to the streets of poverty? Does it a bit self-exculpatory to discount the effects of exploitation of the poor and gilding of the rich?

When confronted with a mental illness diagnosis that supposedly has a genetic basis or cause and a person with such a diagnosis is charged with having committed a crime and the judge or jury hands down a guilty verdict, what are the implications for a theory of the will and personal responsibility? Should that person be acquitted by reason of a genetically based mental illness or defect in brain chemistry? Should the verdict be guilty due to self-determination and personal responsibility for one’s actions regardless of any putative genetic defect? Traditionally, courts are highly reluctant to relieve any accused of personal responsibility. By extension, the option of acquittal based a genetically caused mental illness would ultimately undermine the genetic attribution for poverty and crime. A genetic rationale implies the poor and the criminal should not be held responsible for their behavior. They could not be held responsible for their condition. In addition, by extension, if a verdict of guilty based on personal responsibility where genetics cannot be used to absolve people of wrongdoing would logically undermine a genetic explanation for the superiority and success of the rich and privileged.

Denial of genetics as explanatory logically could not be accepted by the well-to-do if they are to continue to think of themselves as a kind of master race. Denial of genetics as explanatory also implies that poverty and crime require an alternative cause, possibly the structure of society. Denial of genetics requires and alternative explanation for the claims of the rich that they are the masters of their destiny, possibly the structure of society. If the structure of society is the casual explanation, bloodline must be discounted. If the structure of society is the casual explanation, then the accused and the poor cannot be blamed. In such cases, you cannot be guilty whether or not you have a genetic defect and you cannot be judged a success because of your bloodline. On the other hand, you cannot be convicted if the cause is deemed either genetics or the structure of society. You cannot be judged successful due either to the structure of society or to genetics. Without genetics, the rich cannot explain poverty unless they resort to the magical concept of the ‘will’. With genetics, you have a possible justification for acquittal of criminal behavior and no justification for blaming the poor. With the ‘will’ as an explanation, genetics cannot be used as a claim for success. Without genetics, bloodline is irrelevant. With the ‘will’, the structure of society cannot be used as an explanation for poverty and crime. Acceptance of the concept of the ‘will’ serves to rule out both genetics and the structure of society as explanations of wealth, poverty, or crime.

Think about it: can one simultaneously hold both a genetic and a self-determination explanation for success and upper class status or, for that matter, for lower-class status and poverty or criminality? At any rate, such a position would not hold up in a court of law! You cannot say to the judge that a person is guilty because of both personal responsibility, or ‘will’, and genetics at the same time. You cannot say to the judge that a person is guilty because of both personal responsibility, or ‘will’, and the structure of society.

On the other hand, a social and environmental explanation for success and upper class status is also anathema. However, a social and environmental explanation for poverty and crime is also anathema. The genetic explanation is usually classified with the label ‘nature’ and the social-environmental explanation is typically labeled ‘nurture’, hence the nature versus nurture controversy. On the other hand, some would like to have it both ways in that both nature and nurture are equal contributors as the causes of behavior. If the latter duality approach were to be accepted as the most reasonable approach to explaining behavior, then should there not be an effort to make structural changes in the social environment, namely the structures of society and its institutions? Likewise, should there not be an effort to assist the poor and deviant with contributory medical and/or genetic problems? Insistence on personal responsibility as the exclusive cause of life conditions and behavior obviates both of these efforts.

Could acceptance of the genetic or nature argument, then, mean that leaders would be relieved of the responsibility to make structural changes in society and the social environment? On the other hand, if the nature-genetics argument were the case, then how would they justify punishment of criminals? How would they justify not legislating maximum funding for genetic and stem cell research so discoveries in these sciences could be made available to as many people as possible to correct genetic defects? Furthermore, if the nature-genetics position were true, how could legislators justify refusing to promote the potential of genetic and stem cell research to care for the genetically handicapped and mentally ill as well as those with anti-social tendencies?

If the nurture-society, or even the nature plus nurture, arguments were to be accepted, then how could leaders refuse to alter and improve the structure of society?

Accepting both nature and nurture as explanations should lead to efforts to ameliorate both. Rejecting both in favor of ‘accepting responsibility of one’s actions’ and taking the position that such people are undeserving of compassion or assistance entails rejecting genetic attributions in general and especially rejecting these attributions as explanations for success and upper social status. It also logically disallows a compassionate conservatism.

If the structures of society and its institutions were to be seen as both the principal causes for crime and poverty and the principal means for preventing poverty and crime, how could one justify not funding and making the maximum effort to redesign and improve those social structures and institutions? Furthermore, if the latter were to be accepted, how could the discipline of psychology continue to focus primarily on the person independent of the structures of their social environment? Were this omission not the case with the discipline of psychology, there would be a plethora of articles emphasizing the causal role of social structures in shaping behavior. There would also be a massive amount of research designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of redesigning and designing anew social structures and systems, especially of our social institutions, in effecting positive changes in our criminal, poor, and mentally ill populations as well as similar research focusing on those with psychogenic and genetically based physical illnesses and addictions? The implications for the justice system would be massive. Any time a person is charged with a crime, the cause would be sought in the structure of their social environment. Therefore, the emphasis of corrections would be on correcting the flaws in the social structures and social institutions or correcting the absence of preventive social structures and institutions.

The justice system continues to insist on De Jure free will. De Facto free will is relegated to futile debates in philosophy departments. These are two disastrous mistakes. The result is that improvements in the structure of society have no priority in the halls of justice or in legislatures. Academic disciplines that could be serving to help with restructuring a flawed society have virtually abandoned this effort.

The debate about free will is a dead end. An alternative is scientifically and analytically to explore the concept of Intentionality. The free will debate is circumvented with the question becomes the nature of Intentionality. Once the quest for understanding Intentionality is begun, one’s attention is soon directed to what conditions in the structure of social environment shape the processes of intentionality. This is the purpose of Natural Systems. The Natural Systems approach is designed to examine what the processes of Intentionality are and at the same time to examine the nature of the structure of the social environment. It then becomes possible to design the structures of such things as institutions to specifically influence processes of Intentionality and promote or shape healthier, more constructive, and mature intentional processes and behavior. My hypothesis is that the result of such a project would be a huge reduction in criminal behavior, mental illness, poverty, violence, exploitation, and oppression and a huge increase in social civility and personal well-being.

Please take the time to read and contemplate the propositions of the Natural Systems approach.