Hull's Perspective on Human Nature

Hull's Perspective on Human Nature

• Hull argues that a scientifically valid, fixed "human nature" does not exist
• Evolutionary biology reveals high variability among humans, lacking universal and unique traits
• Evolutionary processes shape human traits, causing them to change over time

Potentiality and Normality in the Human Nature Debate

• Some propose traits exist as "potential" or in "normal" humans to preserve the concept of human nature
• Hull dismisses these ideas, as existence potential does not define human nature biologically
• The concept of "normality" has been historically misused to exclude certain groups

Hull's Critique of Cultural Universals

• Hull observes that cultural universals are presumed truths, existing in every human society
• This assumption arises from a bias against recognizing variation
• Like biological traits, cultural traits aren't genuinely universal and often, broad generalizations break down upon closer inspection

Hull's Distinction Between Two Meanings of "Human"

• "Human" can refer to members of the species Homo sapiens, linked to ancestry and reproduction, and a social or philosophical meaning related to personhood, rationality, and morality
• Hull cautions against conflating these meanings to avoid misleading arguments about human nature

Implications of Grounding Ethics in Biological Human Nature

• Basing ethics on biology suggests that morality becomes a product of evolution rather than a fixed truth
• The result being moral values could change over time, similar to biological traits
• Questions arise of whether a fixed human nature is necessary to justify ethical principles

Hull's Skepticism About Uniformity of Rights

• Rights do not require humans to be essentially the same
• Challenging the notion that rights depend on a shared, immutable nature
• Focus on the importance of rights, not proving biological identity, grounding dignity in justice and respect

Nomological Notion of Human Nature

• Defines human nature the set of traits humans tend to have because of evolution, emphasizing trends in human traits over time
• Universality Proposal: traits belonging to human nature should be typical of humans, meaning they are common but not necessarily present in every single person
• Evolution Proposal: traits in human nature must have evolved in species, rather than being purely learned through culture or environment

Difference between Nomological and Essentialist Notions

• Essentialist views argue that human nature has fixed, unchanging traits that all humans share
• The nomological notion differs by focusing on traits that tend to appear through evolution, permitting human nature to change as humans evolve
• Hull's objections criticize universal character traits and highlight evolution's role in making human nature flexible, a consideration taken into account by the nomological notion

Objection to the "Universality" Proposal

• The idea of "typical traits" has been criticized as unclear, due to vagueness around how common a trait must be to qualify as part of human nature
• Machery defends it by pointing out many valuable scientific concepts, like species classification, also have some degree of imprecise definition and that concentrating on patterns is still conductive to discussions of human nature

Objection to the 'Evolution Proposal'

• Separating evolutionary traits from those influenced by culture/learning can be difficult
• Cooperation or language are shaped heavily by social factors
• Machery responds that evolution and culture often interplay, he acknowledges complexity, but it still leaves open the question of how to clearly separate evolved traits from culturally developed ones.

Machery's Perspective on Human Nature

• Machery states “Despite watered down in some respects, this notion of human nature is far from toothless."
• The flexibility in Machery's definition of human nature remains beneficial, allowing researchers to scientifically examine traits and explain their prevalence
• Scientifically grounded, also avoids essentialist problems, however lacks as stronger foundation for ethics/philosophy due to allowance for change and variation

Developmental Systems Account of Human Nature

• It sees human nature as a flexible and evolving process
• Emphasizes development through interactions between genes, environment, and culture, unlike the nomological notion, it focuses on evolution
• Assumes a set of biological traits common to humans, while the developmental systems account argues that human nature is shaped by dynamic interactions over time.

Concept of "Developmental Niche Construction"

• Humans shape their environment to assist development, inclding physical surroundings, social tools and interactions
• It Includes physical surroundings, encompasses social interactions, and includes cultural tools (like language)
• Two roles are:
  • Ensuring stability assists pass down species-typical traits by stable developmental environments
  • Encouraging plasticity allows adaptation and diversity of the environment to fit different needs, explaining why human nature is flexible and varies across culture

Biological vs Cultural Approach

• This includes both biology and culture as it rejects the idea that nature is purely genetic
• Human development is shaped by environmental, genetic, and cultural factors
• Humans actively shape their own environments, meaning culture is a key part of human nature

Adequate Accounts of Human Nature

• A good definition of human nature should
  • Explain traits instead of describing
  • Be used in cross scientific research like biology, psychology, and anthropology
  • Avoid outdated essentialist ideas but still account for human similarities and differences
  • Acknowledge diversity instead of universal traits

Inclusive and Complex Accounts

• Too broad and complicated due to too many factors
• Such as genes, environment, and culture
• That such an all-encompassing view makes human nature too vague to be useful.

Aristotle's Notion of 'Nature'

• Living things have an inner principle determining its function and development, tied to teleology organisms possess a natural goal or purpose
• This essentialist view organisms belong to fixed categories with defining characteristics.
• Walsh distinguishes different forms of essentialism:
  • Kind Essentialism: Each species’ course of development has a telos
  • Nomological Essentialism: Aristotle's view, nature is an guiding force

The 'Anti-Individualism' Stance

• Evolutionary theory is incompatible with Aristotelian essentialism.
• In evolution, organisms aren't central to evolutionary change; instead, change happens at the level of populations, genes, or stats
• Rejects a single fixed “essence” for each species, as evolutionary biology sees species as changing due to random selection

Despite the Anti-Individualist Stance

• Walsh argues individual organisms have necessary capacities to explain why evolution is adaptive
• Individual organisms still have a crucial role and have capacities that are necessary for adaptation:
  • Developmental plasticity Able to change in response to the environment.
  • Functional integration The degree to which an organism's traits work together to support survival and reproduction.
• Said capacities assist with natural selection by way of helping and hindering survival traits
• Natural selection couldn't produce adaptations without functional traits

Modern Developmental Biology

• Walsh claims that modern developmental biology converges strongly upon the Aristotelian notion of organismal nature:
  • Aristotle's nature is defined by the development of organisms, that their traits work together, and by an internal plan (telos)
  • Modern Developmental Biology says traits do not follow random structured processes
• Aristotle's Notion of Organismal Nature
  • Like Aristotle's view, developmental biology shows that organisms have structured, goal-directed development -Instead of fixed essences, it focuses on how development produces predictable forms within species
• Discusses Similarities/Differences
  • Walsh is more teleological more than statistical regularities
  • Developmental systems focus on external factors, culture and the environment, while Aristotle focuses on internal guiding forces.

Darwinian Perspective

• No fixed essence exists
• Instead, species evolve

Theoretical vs. Practical Perspectives

• "Human" can mean a biological member of Homo sapiens
• "Human" can mean a with morale and value
• Science concerns Homo sapiens but ethics concern the latter definition

Hull's Argument Breakdown

• The argument is that
  • Biological species don’t have essences
  • Humans are bio species
  • Therefore humans don’t have fixed natures

Two Core Features of Machery's View

• Traits in human nature must be widely shared, and evolved biologically

DST Key Ideas

• Focus on:
  • Not a fixed essence/Traits
  • But rather constraints

DST: Developmental Construction Roles

• Stability ensures normal trait developing
• Plasticity allows environment adaptation

Essentialism Focus

• Can be saved by organisms having key capacities
• Evolution relies on organismal development, not genes
• If essentialism focuses on "capacities" rather than "traits," it survives

Final Review Key Takeaways

• Hull said that there is too much variation for human nature
• Machery said human nature has statistical typicality
• Stotz and Griffiths say that it's a developmental process
• Essentialism can work if capacities rather than traits are focused upon

Hull's perspective on human nature suggests that a fixed human nature doesn't exist scientifically. He argues that human beings are highly variable, lacking universal and unique traits. According to Hull, the evolutionary process shapes human traits, so they are constantly changing.