[jwalsh07]

He acknowledges the golden rule as a universal moral.

Why? What makes the golden rule any more moral than doing onto others before they do unto you?

In fact, shouldn't the prime imperative be whatever the "Selfish Gene" wants it to be in the world of Dawkin's?

His acknowledgement is like air pie, there's nothing under the crust but hot air. Who cares what he acknowledges, we want to know why he places greater credence in the golden rule than the prime imperative.

[UndauntedR]

Why?

I said he acknowledges it as universal. He acknowledges it as universal because it seems to be so universal. It appears in almost every culture, every religion, and even in other species. Compassion, cooperation, and sympathy are quite universal and immediately lead to the golden rule.

In fact, shouldn't the prime imperative be whatever the "Selfish Gene" wants it to be in the world of Dawkin's?

In a way, yes. We are a social creature and use social rules to build more powerful, sustainable communities. Other social animals emote compassion and cooperation as well (elephants are particularly fascinating). I once wrote a paper (in a feminine studies class no less) titled 'Rape as a Product of Evolution', where I showed a couple of examples (i.e. scorpionflies and ducks) where rape seemed to be an evolutionarily successful strategy. An interesting note is that the scorpionflies are inherently unsocial (they live for, like, at most a month) and the ducks rapes are mostly inter-communal. Social species prefer working together and have developed what we call 'morals' ingrained in our condition. It seems that humans can boil their's down to the golden rule (nearly) universally - we agree that this is how we should act.

Who cares what he acknowledges, we want to know why he places greater credence in the golden rule than the prime imperative.

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by the prime imperative here.