NationStates

I would like to address arguments that concern appeals to "human nature". I wish to address, not the fact that such arguments are seldom rigorous, seldom if ever establishing even the barest inkling of a concrete human nature, but a particular fallacy of this argument which is unique to our modern era, and will only become more relevant in the future.

It is a common argument against any speculative political economic system that its basic assumptions run contrary to human nature. It is usually very much like original sin, actually. In say, opposing communism, Alice says in effect that while the communist system appears utopian, building a communist society is impossible because humanity's flawed nature and greed prohibits production being planned for use, and directed democratically by the community.

This is a tacit recognition of the moral worthiness of the communist aim. And once upon a time, this didn't matter so much, if Alice was indeed correct in her assessment of human nature and its possible contradiction to the communist ethos. But we live in a brave new world now, thanks to the immense development of science and technology.

For the sake of argument, let us define human nature as the previously immutable parts of the human condition that are defined by our genes. So, in an era where concepts like genetic engineering have left the realm of science fiction and have indeed become big business in themselves, and when even more radical transhumanist technological practices are looking increasingly possible, the human nature argument is losing its salience. Because human nature is becoming something that we can self-consciously manipulate.

So, given these new possibilities, a new dimension to the appeal to human nature opens up. If our human nature is no longer immutable, can we really say that our biological nature in anyway trumps a moral argument? If by arguing as she does, Alice has tacitly accepted the moral worthiness of the communist vision, and instead has said "Shucks, we can't do it because it's against our nature," it would then follow that if Alice follows her logic to its inexorable conclusion, she must argue that we should change human nature.

Its the excuse one gives when one has nothing else, and we don't know nearly enough about the human genome to honestly make such assessments.

clever, i must say

but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be

Vectrova wrote:clever, i must say

but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be

This is more of a "gotcha" argument than a serious proposal. It does, however, apply equally to social conditioning, as well as any other speculative political philosophy.

So what you're saying is that people using human nature in arguments that relate to political ideologies are now fallacies, correct?

Trotskylvania wrote:

Vectrova wrote:clever, i must say

but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be

This is more of a "gotcha" argument than a serious proposal. It does, however, apply equally to social conditioning, as well as any other speculative political philosophy.

well sure, but in the end you're just saying, "but we can change that!" without substantiating how we could do so or how practical it would be, which is a lot like saying, "they're somewhere on earth" to someone who just lost their car keys: totally correct, totally useless

it beats a fallacy, but only barely

Costa Alegria wrote:So what you're saying is that people using human nature in arguments that relate to political ideologies are now fallacies, correct?

Correct. It's basically the Appeal to Nature fallacy anyway, just rehashed.

So if it was possible to change human nature, would it still be human nature? Or rather an artificial construct engineered to be a perfect moral suite suitable to fit ones ideology? Deviations in human nature is what allow each of us to be precisely that, human. No one person is perfect. What someone calls a perfect utopia is to someone else a living hell. If we were to change the nature of all humanity to fit another's ideals, we are no longer humans but a shell devoid of any moral choice. Humanity was built on the variations of human nature such as greed, envy, love. Nations have rose and fell due to these differences. To change any of them would to be to end the countless generations of individuality.

Please disect this and correct me where Im wrong.

Genivaria wrote:

Costa Alegria wrote:So what you're saying is that people using human nature in arguments that relate to political ideologies are now fallacies, correct?

Correct. It's basically the Appeal to Nature fallacy anyway, just rehashed.

I'm taking a different tack though. Human nature isn't really immutable anymore. So that leaves the person who has argued the point an uncomfortable choice. They can accept that if it is human nature that is the barrier, it can be changed through genetic engineering. Or, they have to abandon the human nature argument, and say that these things that are barriers to X society are not part of our biological nature, and thus fixable.

Yet if you alter the underlying aspects of humanity, then we're not longer discussing humans.

You're right that, if someone attempted to apply human nature to some sort of transhuman species, it would be a fallacy, but only because they're equating two very different things. This does not mean that appealing to human nature, while talking about humans, would be equally fallacious.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Correct. It's basically the Appeal to Nature fallacy anyway, just rehashed.

I'm taking a different tack though. Human nature isn't really immutable anymore. So that leaves the person who has argued the point an uncomfortable choice. They can accept that if it is human nature that is the barrier, it can be changed through genetic engineering. Or, they have to abandon the human nature argument, and say that these things that are barriers to X society are not part of our biological nature, and thus fixable.

Via Nurture correct?

My hypothesis sustains that "human nature", if it exists, it's a natural proclivity for peaceful and ordered community life, empathy for other individuals and social division according to job.

Xomic wrote:Yet if you alter the underlying aspects of humanity, then we're not longer discussing humans.

You're right that, if someone attempted to apply human nature to some sort of transhuman species, it would be a fallacy, but only because they're equating two very different things. This does not mean that appealing to human nature, while talking about humans, would be equally fallacious.

If you're genetically engineered specimens can still produce viable offspring with unaugmented humans, then the augments are still human. But even if they can't, that still leaves the person making the human nature argument in a place where they must argue that existing human nature is more important than morality.

Genivaria wrote:Correct. It's basically the Appeal to Nature fallacy anyway, just rehashed.

Right. So if it's generally accepted as a fallacy, why does it need it's own thread?

Costa Alegria wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Correct. It's basically the Appeal to Nature fallacy anyway, just rehashed.

Right. So if it's generally accepted as a fallacy, why does it need it's own thread?

I have explained it twice. This is a very specific argument, based on the fact that modern science has given us not only incredible tools to understand our biological nature, but also tools to change it. Given that, even if there is a concrete human nature that is opposed to something, that is still a fallacious argument against that something.

Liriena wrote:My hypothesis sustains that "human nature", if it exists, it's a natural proclivity for peaceful and ordered community life, empathy for other individuals and social division according to job.

Ah, a Humanist
Minus the relgious aspect, that is.

Human nature has never been established, cultural/social nature has, though never directly stated. Humans learn, that is human nature. Whether that is at the basic level of behavioral conditioning or a higher level logical processing, it is still the addition of new knowledge on to the prior, and then extrapolating conditions out.

The argument using human nature is more saying that it would take too long to implement from the context that the discussion is moving from.

Not necessarily. If human nature is the set of all fundamental human characteristics, then Alice has identified some perceived subset of human nature that conflicts with the expectations of communism. She's arguing that because of this subset of characteristics, communism cannot be actualised, even though it might be a pleasant idea. That's fair enough, if she can justify it.

But all of the elements of her identified subset are contained in other subsets; collections of characteristics which she might not consider undesirable. In the context of communism, Alice might consider some characteristic an unfortunate obstacle; but in another context she might consider it sacrosanct.

For example, "self-interest" can be slotted into the negative category of "selfishness", but is contained in the more positive category of "ambition". Her approach to "self-interest" and the context in which she is considering it determines her moral judgement. If we aggregate this, your conclusion rests on whether she considers the "negatives" as outweighing the "positives", and indeed what she considers negative and positive, as considered in all contexts.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Xomic wrote:Yet if you alter the underlying aspects of humanity, then we're not longer discussing humans.

You're right that, if someone attempted to apply human nature to some sort of transhuman species, it would be a fallacy, but only because they're equating two very different things. This does not mean that appealing to human nature, while talking about humans, would be equally fallacious.

If you're genetically engineered specimens can still produce viable offspring with unaugmented humans, then the augments are still human. But even if they can't, that still leaves the person making the human nature argument in a place where they must argue that existing human nature is more important than morality.

No, they must only argue that modifying offspring so they conform to political ideology which is unobtainable through any other means is immoral, or unethical. Appeals to human nature aren't, as you claim, recognizing the moral superiority of the political position, but rather pointing out that it's an unobtainable position due to the constrains of humanity. It is, in a sense, a dismissal of the ideology.

In essence, if someone were to postulate some sort of society where wings were required, and I pointed out that it is human nature that humans do not have wings, I'm not taking any sort of position on whether flying is a more physically desirable mode of movement than running around on two legs. It is only when the ability to fly or have wings becomes reality, whether through genetic engineering or cybernetic implants or flying cars, that we can discuss whether or not flying is physically a more desirable mode of movement.

The advent of the possibility of genetic engineering or cybernetic implants or any other sort of posthuman/transhuman means of altering human nature really only get you to the position where communism or libertarianism is possible, as you have yet to properly show that either of these political ideology (or any other sort of ideology) is morally superior to what we have now.

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Not necessarily. If human nature is the set of all fundamental human characteristics, then Alice has identified some perceived subset of human nature that conflicts with the expectations of communism. She's arguing that because of this subset of characteristics, communism cannot be actualised, even though it might be a pleasant idea. That's fair enough, if she can justify it.

But all of the elements of her identified subset are contained in other subsets; collections of characteristics which she might not consider undesirable. In the context of communism, Alice might consider some characteristic an unfortunate obstacle; but in another context she might consider it sacrosanct.

For example, "self-interest" can be slotted into the negative category of "selfishness", but is contained in the more positive category of "ambition". Her approach to "self-interest" and the context in which she is considering it determines her moral judgement. If we aggregate this, your conclusion rests on whether she considers the "negatives" as outweighing the "positives", as considered in all contexts.

If you want something, get the group to do it for itself. Less personal effort, and being a part of the group, receive it also.

Multiflow wrote:

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:Not necessarily. If human nature is the set of all fundamental human characteristics, then Alice has identified some perceived subset of human nature that conflicts with the expectations of communism. She's arguing that because of this subset of characteristics, communism cannot be actualised, even though it might be a pleasant idea. That's fair enough, if she can justify it.

But all of the elements of her identified subset are contained in other subsets; collections of characteristics which she might not consider undesirable. In the context of communism, Alice might consider some characteristic an unfortunate obstacle; but in another context she might consider it sacrosanct.

For example, "self-interest" can be slotted into the negative category of "selfishness", but is contained in the more positive category of "ambition". Her approach to "self-interest" and the context in which she is considering it determines her moral judgement. If we aggregate this, your conclusion rests on whether she considers the "negatives" as outweighing the "positives", as considered in all contexts.

If you want something, get the group to do it for itself. Less personal effort, and being a part of the group, receive it also.

What are you saying?

Vectrova wrote:clever, i must say

but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be

Social / cultural conditioning can be changed rather quickly; within a generation if proper measures are taken. There is no "ideological inertia"; culture is not genetic.

For example, a couple millennia of Christian domination in Europe did not biologically condition us to accept Jesus as the big cheese of the universe. How long has it taken for atheism to become a more-or-less acceptable public position in Anglo-European cultures? Two or three generations. Did it require brain surgery or eugenics? Not really.

Condunum wrote:

Liriena wrote:My hypothesis sustains that "human nature", if it exists, it's a natural proclivity for peaceful and ordered community life, empathy for other individuals and social division according to job.

Ah, a Humanist
Minus the relgious aspect, that is.

*giggle*

Kinda, yeah...you can partially thank Hitchens for that.

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:

Multiflow wrote:
If you want something, get the group to do it for itself. Less personal effort, and being a part of the group, receive it also.

What are you saying?

Sorry about the quick post.

A way to promote change in a self interested way. Basically how social communities work, you have something you want, and it takes a lot of personal effort to achieve. Promote to your group the benefit of what you want in light of the group's benefit. You then achieve less effort personally as it is distributed amongst the group, and it is a group benefit. As you are a part of the group you receive said benefit.

I agree with your post, and what I said is a way of framing some of it. If I am mistaken I am sorry.

Free Detroit wrote:

Vectrova wrote:clever, i must say

but how do you go about changing countless millennia of social conditioning that makes people, for example, self-interested? the sheer inertia behind these ideas is what makes particular ideologies simply unfeasible, regardless of how self-defeating they might be

Social / cultural conditioning can be changed rather quickly; within a generation if proper measures are taken. There is no "ideological inertia"; culture is not genetic.

For example, a couple millennia of Christian domination in Europe did not biologically condition us to accept Jesus as the big cheese of the universe. How long has it taken for atheism to become a more-or-less acceptable public position in Anglo-European cultures? Two or three generations. Did it require brain surgery or eugenics? Not really.

No but the memes of Christianity are still strong, even if the notions of a divine savoir isn't.

But more to the point I don't believe this is the sort of thing Trots is talking about; a belief in one deity or another may not be hardcoded into human nature, but spirituality or spiritual outlook might be (In the sense they're willing to attribute events or effects to supernatural causes). One can be an atheist, for example, and still have a a lucky rabbit's foot, for example, despite the lack of evidence for such things. Whether that sort of thing is human nature is another question for another thread.