If Human Nature Is Innate Then...?

[chefranden]

Galileo's great sin was not seeing that Jupiter had moons and the Earth moved, but that finding this information would break The Great Chain of Being. How would people know their proper place in the order of the universe if even one link of the chain were broken? What Galileo found threatened anarchy and chaos among humans.

 

In a like manner cognitive science threatens to undo the Blank Slate, and what ever remains of the Ghost in the Machine. Even the great Scientist Steven Jay Gould was unable to go so far as think that the physical nature of a human had much to do with human behavior. Gould writes in a Natural History article "Criminal Man Revived"

 

"Why do we want to fob off reponsibility for our violence and sexism upon our genes?

Pinker

p133

 

The denial of human nature takes place on both the left and the right of the political balance, making strange bedfellows out of old hippy professors and radical fundamentalists.

 

There is no question that the sciences of mind, brain, genes, and evolution will continue to find the physical causes of our behavior. The question is what will we do with the knowledge? Will we continue to deny the knowledge of the mind like Pope Urban and others did about knowledge of the heavens, or will we do something useful with it?

[Ouroboros]

I find it hard to vote, because it's too black-and-white. Morality and ethics are the result of very complex and several contributory systems. Not this or that, or either or. Some of our moral comes innate from evolved survival needs, some old some newer, some outdated, some still valid. Some of our understanding and acceptance of ethics and moral is learned, cultured, grown through language and behavior and has evolved as a system on top, and even maybe modified the genetic ability to understand it (over time) and so on.

 

 

Lets look at the questions:

 

 

If science shows that people are innately different, oppression and discrimination would be justified.

 

I'm not sure why one leads to the other. Two dogs have different shaped tails, that would justify one dog to eat the other?

Can you explain why the issue of difference is connected to oppression?

 

 

If science shows that people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condition would be futile.

 

Well, the problem there is that if we are innately immoral, then we have no ability to know what "improve human condition" really means. The statement of "improve" is a value statement, while the "if science" is a factual statement. An is-ought disconnect here.

 

If science shows that people are products of biology, free will would be a myth and we could no longer hold people responsible for their actions.

We are products of biology, but that doesn't mean anything on the issue of responsibility. It could influence to how much of responsibility there is. Maybe your question really is "if human behavior is deterministic on purely physical and physiological foundations, can a human be held responsible for actions he can't control?" Or in other words "if science proves there are no free will, but all actions are determined, then can anyone be faulted for their actions?"

 

Old philosophical questions... nothing new.

 

If science shows that people are the products of biology, life would have no higher meaning and purpose.

 

Yet again, I fail to see the correlation or the causation. We are what we are, and as humans, we invented the words "meaning" and "purpose", so we are in control of what they mean. We defined the words, do the definitions of the words hang on just thin threads of biology?

 

I think you need to explain it a bit more. Basically it sounds like you are challenging the scientific reductionists view of the world and our existence, and there must be "something more" than just pure matter and existence.

[The-Captain]

If science shows that people are innately different, oppression and discrimination would be justified.

 

Could or would? Psuedo science being used to justify discrimination is old hat after all.

 

If science shows that people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condition would be futile.

 

I suppose so, but this isn't the case eh? Altruism etc. are innate human behaviors as well. Besides people are always changing, if one thing seems certain it's that there is no universal human nature or set of behaviors to typify as moral or immoral.

 

If science shows that people are products of biology, free will would be a myth and we could no longer hold people responsible for their actions.

 

No, I don't think so. Some already try to argue that though. IMO biology can give you greater risks or predilections towards certain behaviors and conditions. But by and large most actions are still made by a personal decision.

 

If science shows that people are the products of biology, life would have no higher meaning and purpose.

 

Define higher. We are products of biology, most of our nature can be traced back through evolutionary precedents, but I think the fact that we can recognize this gives us a degree of control. Therefore our lives can have as much meaning as we choose to ascribe to them

[Legion]

There is no question that the sciences of mind, brain, genes, and evolution will continue to find the physical causes of our behavior. The question is what will we do with the knowledge? Will we continue to deny the knowledge of the mind like Pope Urban and others did about knowledge of the heavens, or will we do something useful with it?

I think we will almost certainly do something with our understanding. After all, understanding is useful. And I would like to think that we will do something great with it, like heal people. Of course, there is always the possibility that some people will use their knowledge in a less than noble fashion.

[chefranden]

I find it hard to vote, because it's too black-and-white. Morality and ethics are the result of very complex and several contributory systems. Not this or that, or either or. Some of our moral comes innate from evolved survival needs, some old some newer, some outdated, some still valid. Some of our understanding and acceptance of ethics and moral is learned, cultured, grown through language and behavior and has evolved as a system on top, and even maybe modified the genetic ability to understand it (over time) and so on.

 

 

Lets look at the questions:

 

 

1. If science shows that people are innately different, oppression and discrimination would be justified.

 

I'm not sure why one leads to the other. Two dogs have different shaped tails, that would justify one dog to eat the other?

Can you explain why the issue of difference is connected to oppression?

 

 

2. If science shows that people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condition would be futile.

 

Well, the problem there is that if we are innately immoral, then we have no ability to know what "improve human condition" really means. The statement of "improve" is a value statement, while the "if science" is a factual statement. An is-ought disconnect here.

 

3 If science shows that people are products of biology, free will would be a myth and we could no longer hold people responsible for their actions.

We are products of biology, but that doesn't mean anything on the issue of responsibility. It could influence to how much of responsibility there is. Maybe your question really is "if human behavior is deterministic on purely physical and physiological foundations, can a human be held responsible for actions he can't control?" Or in other words "if science proves there are no free will, but all actions are determined, then can anyone be faulted for their actions?"

 

Old philosophical questions... nothing new.

 

If science shows that people are the products of biology, life would have no higher meaning and purpose.

 

Yet again, I fail to see the correlation or the causation. We are what we are, and as humans, we invented the words "meaning" and "purpose", so we are in control of what they mean. We defined the words, do the definitions of the words hang on just thin threads of biology?

 

4. I think you need to explain it a bit more. Basically it sounds like you are challenging the scientific reductionists view of the world and our existence, and there must be "something more" than just pure matter and existence.

 

1. My opinion for this and all the questions is False.

 

So why do I raise the issue. Because several Scientists have been labeled Nazi social Darwinists for suggesting that what we know about the mind points to it being shaped in even controlled by human biology. One example is social biologist E.O. Wilson who gave up trying to give public lectures because of the protesters claiming he was a Nazi disrupting his speaking venues. Dawkins has also been accused of this sort of thing even by other Scientists like Gould and Richard Lewontin.

 

I'm interested in finding out if these 4 fears exist in our circle.

 

2. No I don't think so because we are not just innately immoral, we are at the same time innately moral. Or to describe it better we are moral animals with positive and negative moral traits. The fear is that if morals are not outside the organism we will be immoral and immoral only.

 

3. I'm not making any statement about a cutoff point between being responsible and not being responsible. The questions are hypothetical as indicated by the "If". They are meant to ask for your opinion or knowledge about whether or not this will lead to that.

 

4. I'm not challenging anything yet. I may challenge some explanations, if there are any. The questions are what they are. You may answer them true or false with hopefully an explanation of why you chose one or another. But only if it interests you.

 

Perhaps I misled you by putting this in the Lions Den instead of in the Coliseum. If this is the case then by all means move the topic.

[Vomit Comet]

I find it hard to vote, because it's too black-and-white. Morality and ethics are the result of very complex and several contributory systems. Not this or that, or either or. Some of our moral comes innate from evolved survival needs, some old some newer, some outdated, some still valid. Some of our understanding and acceptance of ethics and moral is learned, cultured, grown through language and behavior and has evolved as a system on top, and even maybe modified the genetic ability to understand it (over time) and so on.

 

Bingo.

[Vomit Comet]

One example is social biologist E.O. Wilson

 

While certainly a pioneer, and while he personally was a progressive as opposed to a reactionary right-winger, his brand of biological determinism was excessive. The nuclear arms race, for example, can't be reduced to two apes each striving to have a bigger pile of turds to fling at the other. (That's on the macro-level, of course. But it goes for micro- and individual-level behavior as well.) Evolutionary psychology, neurobiology, and their applications for (and interactions with!!) social psychology are the way to go. Then you have meso-level structures between the micro-social and the macro-social, and so on and so forth. There's a great big human environment we operate within, and that operates on us.

[Ouroboros]

Chef,

 

Thanks for your answer. I think I get your point, basically in principle (correct me if I'm wrong) we're in the same position.

 

However I think these questions aren't really valid. Maybe it's just because of how they're formulated. A different or fuller statement for each question might have been better... I don't know... Anyway, it's just that they sound too much like the trick questions a lawyer would give: "if you beat your wife, would you still think it's wrong to beat a baby?" If you answer yes or no, you're indirectly and involuntary admitting to beating your wife, even though you've never done it.

[Ouroboros]

So why do I raise the issue. Because several Scientists have been labeled Nazi social Darwinists for suggesting that what we know about the mind points to it being shaped in even controlled by human biology. One example is social biologist E.O. Wilson who gave up trying to give public lectures because of the protesters claiming he was a Nazi disrupting his speaking venues. Dawkins has also been accused of this sort of thing even by other Scientists like Gould and Richard Lewontin.

I guess it's similar to how Ben Stein, in Expelled, is claiming that Evolution is the cause to Nazism.

 

2. No I don't think so because we are not just innately immoral, we are at the same time innately moral. Or to describe it better we are moral animals with positive and negative moral traits. The fear is that if morals are not outside the organism we will be immoral and immoral only.

Right. Everything is a big pyramid of interdependent properties, where our biological function and survival instinct is a function based on living matter. And the social construct with morals, rights and duties rest upon our individualism within the same construct.

 

3. I'm not making any statement about a cutoff point between being responsible and not being responsible. The questions are hypothetical as indicated by the "If". They are meant to ask for your opinion or knowledge about whether or not this will lead to that.

Well, if the question is that humans are innately immoral, that doesn't prove if we have a free will, duty or rights, and that we have to choose to either follow the "contract" we establish or not. If the duty is required to survive as an individual, then call that the foundation for moral, innate or not.

 

4. I'm not challenging anything yet. I may challenge some explanations, if there are any. The questions are what they are. You may answer them true or false with hopefully an explanation of why you chose one or another. But only if it interests you.

Sure. It's definitely the opening to a discussion. And don't think I'm criticizing you Chef, because we've had many interesting and giving discussion in the past, and I know you always have some "wildcard" up your sleeve.

 

Perhaps I misled you by putting this in the Lions Den instead of in the Coliseum. If this is the case then by all means move the topic.

No problem. It can go anywhere. There might be more cross-fire and inferno here, but that's all.

[Vigile]

That poll is impossible to vote on. Too many false dichotomies and binary positions to take.

 

For example, first question, if we can prove that humans are not all equal, then legally, discrimination would be acceptable in some forms, but oppression? There's a huge difference between discriminating against someone, (how many white running backs are in the NFL?), and oppressing that same group by allowing them to be mistreated. False dichotomy.

 

Second question. Perhaps you meant inately "A"moral? If so, the question still doesn't make a lot of sense. Human conditions have improved in many ways via technology and evolving cultural philosophies. Do you mean universally?

 

Third question: This assumes that we would be entirely bound by our biological urges ignoring the fact that reason, education, evolving values all come into the equation as well. False dichotomy.

 

Last question.:. Higher meaning and purpose? Such as to serve god? How is this not a question born from a religious paradigm?

[chefranden]

That poll is impossible to vote on. Too many false dichotomies and binary positions to take.

 

For example, first question, if we can prove that humans are not all equal, then legally, discrimination would be acceptable in some forms, but oppression? There's a huge difference between discriminating against someone, (how many white running backs are in the NFL?), and oppressing that same group by allowing them to be mistreated. False dichotomy.

 

1. Second question. Perhaps you meant inately "A"moral? If so, the question still doesn't make a lot of sense. Human conditions have improved in many ways via technology and evolving cultural philosophies. Do you mean universally?

 

2. Third question: This assumes that we would be entirely bound by our biological urges ignoring the fact that reason, education, evolving values all come into the equation as well. False dichotomy.

 

3 Last question.:. Higher meaning and purpose? Such as to serve god? How is this not a question born from a religious paradigm?

 

I'm impressed that most responders noticed the false dichotomies or something wrong about these statements. Since you noticed something wrong with the statements then the proper answer if you chose to answer would be false. I'm a bit surprised that the poll is going the way it is. I suspected that most or more folks would answer true, because from what I'm reading the general population would answer true. Religious people would answer true because they still believe in the ghost in the machine. Liberal people tend more to believe in the blank slate

 

If we atheists are true materialists, we ought not to mark any of these statements true, and that is proving to be the case except for the last.

 

1. No I meant it as stated. We are not amoral animals. We are moral animals that think and act in moral ways. A moral animal makes moral judgments. Sometimes the judgments are good. Sometimes the judgments are bad. Our ability to make bad moral judgments must be innate as opposed to bad shit written by society on blank paper, or a fallen soul. If one believed in either the blank slate or the ghost in the machine, I should think that the statement would be marked true.

 

2. Correct.

 

3. It is a question derived from a religious paradigm. I find it interesting that opinion is divided here considering the trend for the others is false.

[Evolution_beyond]

1st question - no. It is pretty hard to deny that people are very different. The point is that you shouldn't oppress or discriminate on the basis of differences.

 

2nd question - no. Even if people are innately immoral there should still be attempts made to work with that and improve conditions for everyone, to find ways to force/encourage our innately immoral natures to act morally or learn better and become more moral. Ever heard of the 'social contract' theory re. society's laws?

 

3rd question - no. Being the products of biology doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have free will. Even if free will is an illusion it doesn't necessarily mean that people can't be held responsible for their actions. Maybe if Free Will is an illusion then we need to stop thinking that people are 'bad people' when they do something wrong. But we would still need to deal with the problem when people act wrongly, we'll still need to encourage people to behave better, we'd still need to control or punish people when they behave badly.

 

4th question - no. Being the products of biology does not make life meaningless. Science is full of inspiration and value - it enriches life. The mysteries of the Universe are even more awe-inspiring when they are understood or when they remain mysteries than when we lazily call them 'spiritual' or 'God'.

[Legion]

Oh, I didn't vote in the poll either because the questions seemed entirely out of kilter to me.

[R. S. Martin]

I voted false for all the questions because humans won't change just because of a science test. And they aren't that way in the present.

[babysealclubber]

The last question was the only one that tripped me up. It's a question that I've been struggling with since I stopped believing in god. I voted false, but I really don't know the answer. I think I should have voted true.

 

Edit: These questions don't present false dichotomies, in fact, by definition true and false questions are a 'real' dichotomy. If there is some part, any part, of the statement that is untrue, then the answer is necessarily false. It would make more sense to argue that the questions are non-sequiturs, and I believe that's what Chef intended them to be. They also could be taken as straw men, but that's another issue.

 

2nd Edit: I think that the questions would be more strait-forward if you take the "science shows that" parts out, and if you change immoral to amoral, as Vigile suggested. I don't know if you can edit the poll after it's been posted, if not, then nevermind.

[MathGeek]

I voted false for all the questions because humans won't change just because of a science test. And they aren't that way in the present.

 

I agree whole hog here. I also know that philosophy and religion do exist independently of science. Science may become influenced by philosophy and religion and vice versa, but this bit of reason likely has little grounding in reality. If science can advance this far and bronze-age religious beliefs can still thrive in such a progressive era, that just goes to show how messed up humans are individually and as a collective.

 

Plus, it doesn't take much research to show what happens when science is used in the wrong way, and I find that to be a major supporting fact to why Christianity still exists today.

[Mongo]

Discrimination is clearly justified.

 

People of a great variety inabilities (pretty much everyone in one context or another) must face some form of discrimination in any society. Must MY choir accept YOU in it??? Conversely, am I allowed to bar you from attending the concert? Context, Context, Context.

 

Opression???!!! Context again.

 

If one believes in the sancticy of the individual to the point that government/society/others has no justification for authority then I suppose the rejection of "opression" makes sense but that world view is not realistic. Babies and children would die en masse.

 

Since we are social beings... we tacitly accept that participation in society will result in opression of individuals that do not conform. Jungles, deserts and polar ice caps still have room for those who want to live outside the rules of social convention.

 

Its the old trekie thing... the needs of the many versus the needs of the few.

 

I find George Carlin's explanation of our greater purpose quite facinating. He says, we exist for the higher purpose of providing the earth with something that will endure beyond our existance on this planet: plastic!

 

Mongo

[Mongo]

Oh I forgot... I don't beleive that science will establish that people are "innately immoral" as this requires a scientific (measurable and observable) definition of morality.

 

If however, one accepts the non-sequitor, I find the conclusion must be True. Which brings me to the 95% (everyone) who voted opposite to me. I find that it is the nature of humans to reinterpret things to make sense and then process them. Is that what you guys did (not sure how you'd know) or did I make a logical error? The link here to X-xtianity is that as a christian, I observed people mis-interpret things (re-interpret based on their world view) and then draw a false conclusion. It is one thing that led me out of xtianity as the dissonance between what I saw in reality, how people interpreted it and what made sense to me grew wider and wider. Maybe **I** mis-interpreted the question?

 

Mongo

[Mongo]

Since you noticed something wrong with the statements then the proper answer if you chose to answer would be false.

Interesting. Would you think this is an accepted social convention or a logical course of action. (see my last post)

 

It is my nature to follow propositions to their logical conclusion whether I believe in the proposition or not. It drove me crazy in church. "What if 7 days were not litteral days... what affect does that have on the sin and forgiveness?", "What if Joe is imagining that he has a headache and that god didn't really heal him?"

 

I guess I'm suprised that I'm standing alone in this. I expected everyone else to approach it the same as me.

 

Two of the propositions were so illogical that I had to balance my response.

 

I thought the last one to be generally true but that may be due to my interpretation of what is meant by improving the human condition.

 

Although I have a great sense that I am the commander of my life and I can improve my condition, I also see people as coming from a similar rainbow of tendancies regardless of which cluster of society you look at. Human condition to me is what the nature of people are, not living conditions or societal conditions.

 

Religious people would answer true because they still believe in the ghost in the machine.

So are you saying that religious people would not be capable of correctly responding to the questions because it is based on a world veiw they do not share?

 

No I meant it as stated. We are not amoral animals. We are moral animals that think and act in moral ways. A moral animal makes moral judgments. Sometimes the judgments are good. Sometimes the judgments are bad.

I think decisions we make profit individuals or society (indirectly benefits the individual) and although the terms "good" and "bad" are useful in evaluating the efficiency of these decisions but I am much more careful when asked to ascribe a sense of "morality" to them. Splitting hairs perhaps but religious folk tend to think morality is something that exists on a spiritual level and not a function of biological evolution.

[chefranden]

Yey, for babysealclubber.

 

Really these are not trick questions. They are just true or false questions. Honest biscuit.

 

IMHO they are all false. I’m intrigued that the last question has more true answers then the rest.

 

Interesting. Would you think this is an accepted social convention or a logical course of action. (see my last post)

 

If I read you right I’d say yes to both. They are meant to be true or false questions. Either the proposition is true or it is not. There is nothing non-literal to read into them.

 

Two of the propositions were so illogical that I had to balance my response.

 

If you found them illogical then you found them false. No balancing needed.

 

So are you saying that religious people would not be capable of correctly responding to the questions because it is based on a world veiw they do not share?

 

I’m saying that I would expect them to answer true because their view of the origin of human nature is usually “the Ghost in the Machine” rather than evolution. I do not mean that they are incapable of answering false.

 

Edit, I would also expect that a non-believer that considers human nature to come from Hobbes' Blank Slate would also see these statements as true.

[Ouroboros]

Okay, I'll give it a new try.

 

If science shows that people are innately different, oppression and discrimination would be justified.

 

Science already shows that people are different. DNA is a fingerprint. We're all different. Hitler already oppressed people for "scientific" differences. It has been done already. Fetuses are discriminated too, because if they have a genetic defect, they might be brought to term.

 

When it comes to medicine, some ethnicities responds different to different medical treatment, should the group where the medicine doesn't work be discriminated against and refused the medicine (since it's ineffective) just to favor the ones the medicine works for? Most probably.

 

So do people justify oppression and discrimination based on science? Yes.

 

Should we justify discrimination? Maybe in some cases when it comes to medicine, but we shouldn't oppress them.

 

Some criminals are so because of deficiencies in their brain, sometimes genetic. They are denied freedom, free speech and they can't vote. Is that oppression? Is it because of their difference (and in this case innate) to society in general?

 

So my answer depends on interpretation of the question.

 

 

 

If science shows that people are innately immoral, hopes to improve the human condition would be futile.

 

If science proves anything about morality, the morality is a scientific concept. It has facts, and is factual, and there's no doubt about what "morality" is. First of all, it would be a huge breakthrough, since there are competing theories and they all make sense in their own little ways.

 

Now if science did establish a mathematical concept of morality, and humans were proven not to have this ability innate... then the word "improve" has to be a factual statement too. We would have an exact definition of what "improve" means, in scientific terms. If this, and if that, then science also could figure out how to genetically enhance humans to get to that "improvement". Basically, remodel the "innate" capacity to become scientifically moral, and get to the "improvement".

 

So in that sense, it could be done, so it's not futile. Then the statement it's false.

 

Now if morality is a concept that can't be scientifically analyzed. If it's too complex, like weather can't be predicted to 100%, and if we don't have an exact definition of what we mean with "improve", then I think it's futile regardless if science proves anything or not.

 

So then the statement would be true.

 

This still leaves me with the options: false and true.

 

(Btw, the "improved" human, and this question, is a conflict between natural law theory in ethics, and the idea of scientific reductionism, and they don't like each other... but both got good points to support their side.)

 

 

If science shows that people are products of biology, free will would be a myth and we could no longer hold people responsible for their actions.

 

I doubt free will can be explained or "un-explained" through biology. In the view of biology, we are already deterministic, but too complex to understand to the details exactly how.

 

Without responsibility, there's no justice. Without justice, there's no society. Without society, there's no science. Without science, there's no biology.

 

Quantum mechanics are believed to be the saving grace and bring back the possibility of free will.

 

But if free will doesn't exist, yes, no one is responsible in the sense of "free choice" responsible. But then on the other hand, if everything is deterministic, the "responsibility" is a deterministic product too, and we can apply a "deterministic" response, which is that we, just like the myth of free will, we maintain a myth of responsibility.

 

To all this, we also have to count in protection of future victims, so if this question is regarding justice and punishment, we should still put people behind bars for their actions, but more for the utilitarian view of it, rather than penalty.

 

So... yes, and no?

 

 

 

If science shows that people are the products of biology, life would have no higher meaning and purpose.

 

If we live a myth, the meaning is a myth already, and purpose is an illusion. If it already is, then we can keep on doing so. Everything we do, our experience of life and events, are in themselves already illusionary. We don't see the things for what they truly or really are. We see colors in a specific spectrum of light. We only hear sounds in a certain range. And we do it differently. We might not have the exact same response to seeing the color red or blue or green. We live in our own myth-making on a daily basis. So can we create meaning and purpose regardless of knowing this? Yes, I do think so. I know these things, and think we're fairly tied to a deterministic system, and yet I find meaning and purpose based on the illusion of "love", "selfishness" and "pleasure", "pain"... and so on...

 

So no, I think the statement is false, on a personal level.

 

But on the other hand, a think a lot of people would not be able to do such a transition. They would not be able to create a meaning and purpose, post-reductionism. So for people in general, the answer could be that they couldn't! So in general terms, the answer might be true!

 

Again, my answer is true and false, depending on view and how it's interpreted.

[chefranden]

Thanks Han,

 

I'm not going to argue that you didn't see these questions as something besides true/false questions. Only that true/false is how they were intended. I can't argue against your experience.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not going to argue that you didn't see these questions as something besides true/false questions. Only that true/false is how they were intended. I can't argue against your experience.

And please don't take it as any personal attack or such. We all have different views on things, and I can accept that.