In order to decide how appropriate it is to praise/blame people for their behaviour, it must be ascertained to what extent a person's behaviour is determined by his genes. If a person's disposition is due entirely to his genes, then surely it is unfair to praise/blame him for his actions caused by such a disposition.
Many believe that our characteristics are determined not by our genes, but by the environment in which we grow up. In this view, we are born blank slates with no innate traits. The interaction of our genetic coding and our environment make it difficult for us to tell how large a role each plays in determining our personalities and behaviour. Even if it is the case that our characteristics are the result of the environment in which we have been reared, surely the same moral question arises, for again we can be seen merely to be (in Richard's words,) "blameless puppets."This essay is concerned with the extent to which blame/praise can be applied whatever the balance of nature versus nurture.
The reason that many believe that our dispositions are due to our genetic coding is that we often behave in very similar ways to our parents. If our parents are intelligent, then usually we are too. In the same way, if our parents are prone to being careful in all their actions, then we usually share this characteristic. This view has been supported by research about adopted children. The Colorado Adoption Project discovered that as we age genes increase in influence. Between the ages of 3 and 16, adopted children grow to be more like their birth parents in height, weight, and IQ. Thus, as children grow old, their home environments have less impact on their personalities. This is certainly believed by Gould, who has championed the notion that genetic characteristics, both physical and mental, are unavoidable. In his view, therefore, our dispositions that lead us to behave in certain ways are due entirely to our genetic coding. If this is the case, should we be blamed/praised for such behaviour?
To further our understanding of such matters, research has been made by looking for traits that show a greater resemblance in identical twins than in non-identical twins, which indicates a shared genetic basis for the trait. This is known as "heritability." Some diseases have high heritability percentages, such as asthma, which has a heritability of 60%.
However, for the sake of this essay, I am more interested in the heritability of certain dispositions, such as a tendency to violence. For example, if a baby is born as the product of rape, is he likely to grow up to be violent even if he is brought up in a loving environment? We can attempt to answer this questions by researching adopted children. Since adopted children are not brought up by their biological parents, researchers can compare resemblances between the children and the birth family and between the children and the adoptive family.
A Danish study investigating 14,427 children separated from their birth parents as infants showed that boys were more likely to have a criminal record if their birth parents had a criminal record than if their adoptive parents did. Using this evidence, perhaps it is inappropriate to blame them for their actions, if a tendency to such behaviour is genetic.
However, many people believe that no matter what your genetic encoding, the environment in which you grow up can change your disposition. Whether our behaviour is due entirely to our genes or if in fact it is also due in part to the way in which we are reared, the premise of this debate seems to negate the presence of free will.
If all of our characteristics are determined by our genes and/or our environment, and our behaviour is caused by these characteristics, surely this leaves no room for freedom of choice? In other words, should it be appropriate that we praise/blame people for their behaviour if a tendency to such behaviour is genetically encoded or due to the environment in which they are nurtured? Shouldn't we instead praise/blame their genes and/or environment?
As society stands at the moment, we do praise or blame people for their behaviour. Despite the fact that "addictive personalities" are commonly thought to be genetic, we still blame people for their drug addictions or alcoholism, and especially actions they have carried out under the influence of their particular addiction. However, we do not blame those who are unable to account mentally for their actions if they were born with a specific disability. For example, autistic children are frequently unable to maintain moral standards, yet we do not blame them for their behaviour. In fact, lawyers often use mental instability as a defense for their clients, for we seem to regard mentally unstable people as having diminished social responsibility, for they have a tendency to behave in such manners. If it can be proven that our behaviour is due to either our genes or the environment in which we have been reared, or even both, then surely the same conclusion can be applied: we have diminished social responsibility, as we have the tendency to behave in certain ways.
