exam essay points Flashcards
essentialist concept of human nature
defines human nature as the properties shared by all and only humans, over the whole time that species exists, that are unchanging.
- sees these properties as distinctive of human beings, explaining why some beings are not human.
believes that the nature/essence of something depends on the description of it
- sees human traits like rationality, language, or humour as essential to humans, and therefore distinctive of humans, and human nature
- e.g. Tommy is a cycling mathematician. If hes described as a cyclist, its essential that he has two legs but not that he’s rational. If he described as a mathematician, its essential that hes rational but not that he has two legs
nomological concept of human nature
defines human nature as the properties most humans tend to have as a result of evolutionary processes
- has to do with biological laws of evolution
- sees traits like capacity to speak, bipedalism, and fear reactions to unexpected noises as common among humans due to evolution, therefore part of human nature
machary’s standpoint
Machery agrees with skeptics that the essentialist concept is not defensible, but he argues that the nomological concept is better and compatible with evolutionary science. He demonstrates this through analyzing the key differences between the two.
key differences between the two + why its compatible with evolutionary science
1) The main difference between the two concepts is that having properties that are specific to all and only humans is not sufficient/necessary to be human
- e.g. there can be a whole different planet that with species that have the capacity to speak, fear reactions to unexpected noises, and , but they still wont be considered human because they don’t share the same ancestry with humans
- e.g. if you think about the properties of “all and only humans”, there’s language, art, reason, morality, but you could apply that to any creature (language- orcas, art- bower birds)
- the only common trait among all humans is ancestry
2) the nomological concept recognizes that for someone to be human, they dont have to have some or even any of the relevant properties (rejects the human essence concept)
- e.g. some humans dont have the capacity to speak or fear reactions to unexpected noises because of brain defects, but that still makes them human
3) the nomological concept takes into account that if human evolution is true, then the properties part of human nature can change over time, explaining why some traits are part of human nature rather than learning
- e.g. if you’re looking at the capacity to speak as part of human nature, the concept undertsands that at one point in time, humans didn’t have the capacity to speak. the CAPACITY to speak and understand a language has evolved, whereas the ABILITY to speak and understand a language has not– this ability is a product of learning
Machery’s response to Hull ( + my opinion)
Hull concludes that there is no such thing as human nature because of the premises:
1) For human nature to exist, there must be properties shared by all and only the members of a specific species.
2) There are no properties that are sufficient/necessary to be distinctive of humans.
- Hull’s argument regards the essentialist concept of human nature, and Machery argues that if Hull were to base his arugment off the nomological concept of human nature, then he would have no argument at all
- Machery continues to explain that the nomological concept doesnt claim that there are properties specifically distinct of humans, but rather properties that humans just happen to share because of evolution. He justifies that just because there are human traits shared with other species or not shared within the human species, doesnt mean its not part of human nature.
I agree with Machery on this point. I understand why Hull would claim this through the essentailist lens, but with introducing the nomological lens, Hull is left with no argument. The nomological lens introduces a definition of human nature that isn’t strict, and I like how this concept recognizes that there are traits most humans share that either other animals share as well or that some humans themselves dont share, but that doesnt take away frm the fact that its part of a human nature.
Machery explains why it could replace the essentialist view / objections
Machary claims that the nomological view could replace the essentialist view because it doesn’t deal with the same objections the essentialist concept does
objection 1:
- the nomological concept strays too far away from the traditional idea of human nature, in which people associate properties that are distinct of humans with human nature, and looks like human nature but is not
- response: Machery explains that the nomological concept does align with some of the roles that human nature has played in history. he explains that to say a trait is part of human nature is to say that it is common among humans, which then can be traced back to evolutionary processes
objection 2:
- the nomological concept is too inclusive and assumes all-too-quickly that every single trait that is common among humans must be explained by evolutionary processes.
- response: Machery clarifies that it does not have to be that every trait of a human is part of human nature. He goes on to explain that if a trait is common among humans but cannot be explained through evolutionary processes, then it is simply not a part of human nature. for instance, its common among humans to know that water is wet, but this knowledge did not come from evolution, but rather from experience and learning. therefore, the knowledge that water is wet is not a part of human nature.
my final opinion
- I find Macheyr’s points and respinses to counterarguments defineitley valid and throrough, and that he provides rational reasoning for believing that the nomological concept is better and compatible with evolutionary science, but I dont think we should be using just an evolutionary domain to explore and define human nature
- Machery’s main idea is that any trait that cannot be explained through evolution is not a part of human nature…. but what about spirituality?
- the evolutionary domain might involve properties like bipedalism, capacity to speak, or fear reactions to unexpected noises, but ignores the properties like rationality, morality, and spirituality that could be discussed through domains like sociology, theology, or philosophy
- essentially, I believe that its valid to describve human nature through an evolutionary lens, because there are parts of human nature that can be described through the changes in our ancestry overtime, but even though we are evolutionary beings, I dont think thats all we are.
- using domains such as sociology, theology, or philosophy could help define humans not as just evolutionary beings, but spiritual beings as well.
- im not deeming that this scientific view of human nature is invalid, but just ssaying there could be an additional view to account for the other aspects of human nature that cannot be accounted for by science
- in response, people may argue that there is no such thing as spirituality or souls, and we are solely products of our evolution, and there is no other layer to who we are– we are strictly evolutionary beings.
- regardless, there will always be debate if the nature of humans stems from evolutionary processes or the environment, or maybe both
- Machery;s argument explains human nature through humans being evolutioanry beings, bu I believe that we are more than just that. theres more to humans than just being a product of evolution, and I dont believe that science or evolution could describe/explain the soul of a being.
- I dont think this concept of being something more than just an evolutionary being invalidates the idea that we have evolved, I just think we need somethign more to fully grasp the concept of human nature or what it means ot be human, and that means adressing the feeling of being somethign more, liek a soul.
intro
Is there a fundamental base of human nature that can be traced to explain the behaviour of humans? This philosophical question is explored by philosopher Edouard Machery, who, essentially, defends human nature– the set of properties of all and only human beings which explain why only some beings are human, through a nomological concept that is compatible with evolutionary science.
