Human ‘Nature’?

It is almost with great reluctance that I write about this topic. So, why am I so unwilling? Those at the stall know me to be sociable – but is that due to my nature, or the nurture I have received? This is where we come to the rub of the situation. I think it is extremely hard to decide between the two options. Humans are extremely complex and diverse in their social etiquette, for example. Any anthropologist will tell you that. However, when we analyse the human body, we see that due to natural selection we have developed certain characteristics. Our eyes, placed at the front of our faces, would suggest that we are predators. If this is the case, why do we find that individuals, and entire societies, eat a diet that doesn’t contain meat? I mean, surely this goes against human nature, right?

Well, perhaps we should think again. When dealing with the world in a scientific sense, we have to accept that there are a lot of variables within any given situation. It seems that ‘human nature’, a term which is taken for granted, is not as simple as we would like to think. What does the phrase human nature mean, anyway? A ‘human’, scientifically, is an animal that belongs to the genus Homo Sapiens – meaning wise man. Does that mean, by definition, that it is in our nature to be wise? And what of the term ‘nature’? Well, as Wittgenstein will tell us, words mean different things in different contexts. However, in the context of the phrase, the word ‘nature’ can be defined as follows: “as a result of inborn or inherent qualities; innate.”

Peter Singer – a famous Australian philosopher, lauded by Dawkins as “the most moral man” he knows -- however, wouldn’t say that this makes someone human. It’s certainly an interesting question, isn’t it? What qualifies someone as a human? A lot of the people at our market stall say the ability to communicate, which, as far as we know, is the most developed amongst any species, makes us human. Also, our ability to think is more pronounced than any other species, too.

Nevertheless, Singer says it is our ability to think in an autobiographical sense that differentiates us from non-human animals. However, I think other examples are more interesting; literature, for instance, is unique to humans.  And Chekhov, a famous Russian dramatist once declared, “Man will become better when you show him what he is like.” But how can man know what he is like, until he knows what he is?

Of course, when examining humanity, we have to remark about human diversity. A narrow way of looking at this is to examine the differences between men and women, for instance. Men have more testosterone than women. That is a scientific fact. As we know, this sex hormone leads to behavioural differences between men and women, in general.  Though this is not analogous, we see horses with higher levels of testosterone to be more muscular, faster, and even more aggressive. However, and there always seems to be a however, why do we see societies, even male-dominated ones such as the Amish, that don’t have a single recorded murder amongst them?

The reason is due to what evolutionary psychology’s great thinker, Henri Tafjel, would call social identify theory (this is better known as in group out group psychology). It is important to note, and please don’t think I’m trying to get you fantastic intellectuals to suck eggs here,  that psychological experiments study many humans to validate their claims. Thus, it can come as no surprise that psychology analyses trends, rather than absolutes. This makes my claim, the main theme of this humble piece of philosophy, relative, rather than absolute.

I believe that the nurture/nature debate is a little tired. Personally, I think we see differences in different countries/ societies due to human nature, rather than nurture. Nurture, for me, is a bubble within human nature, and please let me explain why, before rolling your eyes. Social identify theory proposes the idea that humans do the following:

“Tajfel proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world...

...to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For example, England is the best country in the world!  We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudiced views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to). For example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers!”

Different tribes have different social conventions, or invent them, to differentiate themselves from other tribes. That iss why we have different etiquette, that’s why we have such a variety of different customs, cultures, values, and languages throughout the world. As humans, we are obsessed with our identity; whether you like it not, that is the one common feature of humanity. As this longing for identity transcends nurture, and is true of all societies, this conclusion, ultimately, must be true.

I’m not going to apologise for being so forthright. It’s in my nature, after all – and Nietzsche would say that my nature is determined by my “innate order of rank” due to my lineage. So, who would I be, as humble as I am, to argue with him?

Samuel Mack-Poole

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 40

Peter Singer: - By Samuel Mack-Poole

Would you like (relative) infanticide with (relative) bestiality? An insight into the morality of Peter Singer:

Since Peter Singer’s controversial interview with Richard Dawkins, his prominence amongst the global intelligentsia is on the rise. He has been lauded by Dawkins as the “most moral man” he knows. This, obviously, is quite an endorsement from one of the world’s most publicity hungry scientists. But, as philosophers, we should question Singer’s arguments. It is our duty to do so. For if we don’t, the dogmatists will. And we all know how easy it is to argue with a dogmatist…

One of Peter Singer’s more controversial arguments (to the non-scientifically minded) is that we are not special just through the virtue of belonging to the species Homo sapien sapien (please note that we are a species of a common ancestor Homo sapien within two sub-species; our evolutionary cousin being Homo sapien neanderthalensis).

It is a scientific fact that we are animals. That is not in doubt. However, what we should question is: how are we unique or ‘special’? Singer has said in an interview, which is on YouTube, that humans have an ability to see their lives in a “biographical sense”. Humans can remember the past and plan for the future to a greater extent than any other species. He also states that humans “admittedly have capacities to reason and use language that exceeds any non-human animal.”

Despite this, Singer argues, quite truthfully, that not all humans have this ability. New-born infants don’t, and whilst I don’t want to broaden this debate too much, an embryo certainly doesn’t. Personally, I think Singer’s arguments regarding new-born infants are flawed. According to a Kant’s Doctrine of Right:

“Due to the congenital nature of life per se, every parent is morally obligated to care for their child until they are able to care for themselves. As a child has no ability to consent to be born, it is the moral duty and obligation to provide care and sustenance for their child.”

This, to me, highlights a moral case for every, and any, parent taking responsibly for their child – even in the case of disability. Singer rejects this argument, quite simply, because he does not think all human life is worth saving. He peremptorily rejects traditional and conservative moral values -- which isn’t necessarily a bad thing -- by claiming only life that is fully aware, sentient and has consciousness worthy of being regarded as a person.

In his own words, Singer has stated:

“I use the term "person" to refer to a being who (sic) is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future.”

Not only is this grammatically incorrect, but this is a very narrow way of valuing human species.  Furthermore, this acute argument leaves Singer wide open to a very slippery slope – almost a forty-five degree glacier. If a new born baby, which can survive independent of its biological mother, doesn’t meet Singer’s highly subjective criteria, does a one year old child? What about a toddler that is not capable of speech, but who can think of plans? How “new” is new-born? It would be unfair, however, not to mention biased, of me to misrepresent Singer.

He only advocates infanticide when the parents and doctors have agreed it is in the best interests of the child – in the case of extremely severe disability. He is very careful to be relative – for morality can only be applied to special circumstances. He, in no way, shape or form, advocates the, dare I say it, bestial butchering of hundreds of healthy new-borns.

 This, naturally, leads very nicely onto Singer’s views on bestiality. He doesn’t blindly believe that any sexual activity with an animal is “wrong” per se. In no way is sexual behaviour with animals a social norm – unless you are a young male from a rural area (you can look at Kinsey’s statistics for yourself) -- yet it is true that since the dawn of man, members of our species have chosen to interact sexually with non-human animals. As there are biblical statutes on the matter, it is quite clear a law was created to stop humans doing something that the majority did not.

However, a biblical approach to life is not (actively) followed by most in modern Britain. The majority of men are Onanists; we are, for the most, a liberal and accepting society. Sodomy, homosexuality -- amongst both genders -- can be practiced openly. As this is the case, why is sex with animals deemed “immoral” and illegal?

Singer has written an article called Heavy Petting in which he outlines his views on Zoophilia – after all, bestiality has such a bad name.  It is implied that Singer is a consequentialist (someone who believes the consequence(s) of one's action determines its moral value) and that he does not take a strictly rights-based approach to ethical issues. 

The following quote will illustrate Singer’s position:

“Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.”

If both parties experience “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature, Singer does not think the act is inherently immoral. However, Singer conveniently ignores the glaringly obvious, almost neon white, elephant in the room: consent! Tom Regan, a fellow philosopher, correctly states that the same argument can be used to validate a paedophile’s lust for children. If the logic is not sound in all contexts, the argument is invalid – isn’t it?

For some reason, my moral compass is not offended by the thought of a woman riding naked on a horse, and reaching orgasm as a result – but I am offended by the thought of a man fucking a sheep. I have to be honest, and admit to my moral hypocrisy; I have to work on my contradictions. In the end, I guess, I have to admit that I’m only (a) human (animal).

By Samuel Mack-Poole

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27