Thank you. That makes my case for me - Dawkins, et. al., have a definition of how a species should behave for its benefit, but no definition of why *I* should follow that behavior.
What benefits a species does not necessarily do me any good; e.g., if I see a lion attacking my children, it's to the benefit of my species if I die to save them, but I personally get the short end of the stick. Why not say "too bad," and go make some more kids? For that matter, why have kids at all - they use up resources I could spend on myself. No animal ever thought "I'd better do X for the good of my species" - it was following its instinctive urges, which is another way to say "I do whatever pops into my head." If what pops into my head is to have a cold one and watch the show, should that mean "Tough luck, Junior?"
So far as I can tell, Dawkins and his fellows are saying one of two things:
1) "Instinct is good, and should be followed." In that case, any urge I may have - to steal, murder rape, you name it - is good, and should be followed. It must be there for a reason, or I wouldn't have it.
2) "Survival of the species and/or my genes is good." In that case, the behavior Dawkins finds abhorant - homophobia, racism, infantcide, genocide, etc - are quite acceptable if they allow my genes to be propagated. E.g., why not wipe out the tribe/city/nation in the next valley? More land for me and my family!
Without endorsing evolution or creationism, Dawkins' argument seems logically contradictory.
He wouldn't survive a week in a truly Darwinian society.
He is the weakest link.