Some Philosophy Paper

Overarching Question Essay – Unit 1

1. Human beings are complex, and so is their history. It has been one of the most hotly debated topics for a long while. This is likely due to a couple factors. One that quickly comes to mind is that there are a multitude of different groups debating said topic. It is a topic where religion and science clash, and historically, when those two subjects clash, the ending isn’t quick to come. On one hand, some argue that biology, and evolution, can explain all there is to know about human beings. This side makes sense because it has the widely believed-to-be-true theory of evolution. Evolution can explain how human beings came to be, so it seems as if biology could explain everything about humans. On the other hand, it appears that biology just simply falls short. There are so many aspects of humans that just seem beyond biology, such as how people each individually choose their values, how people prefer one shirt over the other while the next person prefers the opposite, and so on. With all of that said, that is why this topic is so hotly debated. There are many different arguments to be made for each view, and

that is why people wonder how vital of a role biology plays in explaining human beings.

1. On the biological side, there have been multiple people to step forward and bring forth their argument on why biology is the vital key to explaining humans. Two names that are on this side are Richard Dawkins and Edward Wilson. Starting with Dawkins, Dawkins’ argument was that human beings are born naturally selfish. In standard argument format, his argument was as follows: If humans’ goal is to survive, then they are born selfish. Humans’ goal is to survive. Therefore, humans are born selfish (Barash, 1998, p. 273). What he was going after in relation to the overarching question was that humans’ actions are explained by their natural selfish drive to survive. His idea was based off of the well-known theory of Darwinism, and the idea that humans’ priorities are to survive and sustain for themselves as long as possible. Wilson, also on the biological side, argued that humans’ brains, while extraordinarily complex, can be explained. His argument, in standard argument format, is that if the brain is a machine of ten billion nerve cells and can be explained by a finite number of chemical/electrical reactions, then humans are biologically limited to what they can be. The brain is a machine mad of ten billion nerve cells and can be explained by a finite number of chemical/electrical reactions. Humans are biologically limited to what they can be (Barash, 1998, p. 268). The support this provides for this side is, essentially, that human beings are driven by their brain, and with that being said, the brain has a finite amount of things that it can do. If that is true, then how could humans possibly be more than what their brain allows them? Wilson is saying that humans are biologically driven, and with the limits of the brain, live to survive. While the aforementioned arguments have many supporters, there are others who believe that biology is not the sole reason behind explaining humans and their history. The main standout name on this side that will be discussed is Ruth Benedict. Benedict believed that human beings are not committed to any particular behavior because of their biological makeup. In standard argument format, her argument looks as follows: If man is not committed by his biological constitution to any particular variety of behavior, then man is not controlled by biology. Man is not committed by his biological constitution to any particular behavior. Therefore, man is not controlled by biology (Benedict, 1973, p. 3-4). Benedict is an anthropologist, therefore strongly on the side that says that biology is not the sole explanation for human beings. Her point was basically that if humans are supposedly “biologically driven”, then why are humans different? If humans were all acting purely out of biology, then wouldn’t they all act the same? Since humans are all unique in their own ways, she uses that to try to disprove some arguments from the biological side.

1. Starting off with Dawkins, his argument is fundamentally sound in terms of the theses and the conclusion. Everything about it is perfectly believable. However, it does have a weakness, and that weakness is the barrage of examples that could be thrown at it to disprove it. If humans are born selfish, why do people risk their lives helping others in third world countries, or serving in the military? It struggles to defend itself against the examples of people who are clearly altruistic in their nature. While it is possible that a majority of people are selfish, there are a whole great deal of people who would wholeheartedly disagree with Dawkins. Moving on to Wilson, he also comes in with an argument that is both fundamentally sound in the theses, perhaps more so than Dawkins due to the implication that these theses can be backed up by research, and a solid conclusion. Wilson’s argument, off top, comes off as a more sturdy argument. It is harder to refute something when there is evidence implied in the argument. His argument is good, and arguably the best for the biological side. Benedict’s argument, the third and final, is another argument with good theses, and a logical conclusion. This argument is perhaps the most appealing one due to the strategy of taking what the other side said, and trying to prove that what they said isn’t true. She takes any research that is implied into the other sides’ arguments, puts her own input in play, and the

finished product is a strong argument.

1. After taking in all of the evidence provided, it seems that the idea that humans’ history can be explained purely through evolution and biology is harder to believe than the other side. Humans, as a whole, are such utterly complex, and diverse, beings, that it seems highly unlikely that they can be explained just from one direction. Looking at what Benedict did in her counter-argument, she took the reasoning behind Dawkins’ and Wilson’s arguments, and used it to her advantage. She didn’t provide an answer of her own necessarily, but blew a massive hole in the ship that was the biological side of the argument. After all of the research that was presented for that side, she simply just took what the two men said, and flipped it on its head. If humans are only here to survive, and are therefore operating in a way that optimizes their chances, then how come humans don’t all dress the same, do the same activities, and eat the same food? Since human beings, despite their vast differences in personality, physical appearance, etc., are all nearly identical biologically on the inside, that implies that they would all do the same things. For example, look at seagulls. One can travel far into northern Minnesota in the summer months, and they can see seagulls around the lakes up there. Come winter months, seagulls wouldn’t be able to sustain life due to the cold temperatures. Therefore, seagulls head south to warmer places. There isn’t just a couple of seagulls that hang around Minnesota in the winter because they prefer the cold due to that being their preference. Every seagull that is physically able goes south. Now, look at humans. If it came down to it, humans would also not be able to survive in the Minnesotan winter either. What they do is adapt to their climate. If humans are all the same, and assuming that said humans are able to control where they live, then why wouldn’t they move to somewhere that is the most ideal for human survival? There is something beyond biology that helps in the explanation of human beings.

1. Works Cited

Barash, D. P. (1998). Ideas of human nature: From the Bhagavad Gita to sociobiology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Benedict, R. (1973). Patterns of culture. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.