Philosophy 152 Philosophy of Human Nature Darwall Fall 1996 WILSON II For next time: complete Wilson selection, pp. 402-408, in Abel. I Wilson defines sociobiology as "the systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, in all kinds of organisms, including man." (389) We might think of it as resting on two assumptions: (a) Some social traits are hereditable or "genetically determined." A trait is genetically determined, only if it "differs from other traits at least in part as a result of the presence of one or more distinctive genes." (391) (b) The existence of these traits in the species can explained by natural selection. Thus sociobiology maintains that the bases of (some) social behavior is less heritable and genetically determined in the same ways as eye color. And the theory of evolution can be a useful source of explanations for many social traits in humans. Note the "at least in part" in the definition of genetic determination. Even when a phenotypical trait is genetically determined in this sense, it will actually be the result of other environmental factors. II Example: the "incest taboo." III Wilson's first dilemma: "The species lacks any goal external to its own biological nature." Recall Aristotle's idea that all human activity serves an ultimate telos or goal. Or Aquinas's Christianized version of the same idea. The only goal that shapes the species is the survival of the genes that determine phenotypical traits. Genes determine traits. The genes of adaptive traits (e.g., those that increase the likelihood of reproduction and care of offspring) tend to be passed on, which genes will continue to "design" those adaptive traits. As Wilson puts it, "the brain exists because it promotes the survival and multiplication of the traits that direct its assembly." It is as if, therefore, human nature and the traits involved in human activity exist in order to promote the survival and multiplication of the genes that genetically determine human nature and traits. N.B. This does not mean: A. That this is actually our goal in action, either consciously, or unconsciously. For one thing, humanity didn't even have a concept of gene until relatively recently. So it could hardly have been our consious goal. But neither could it have been our unconscious goal in any thing like Freud's sense. B. Neither does it mean that our goal is (only) self- preservation. Our genes "design" whatever traits maximize chances for their survival. And their chances may be better if they give us goals other than our own survival. E.g., parental concern. IV A remark about the hereditable social traits and free will. Is the idea that social traits are heritable consistent or inconsistent with the idea of free will? V Now even though there is no strict logical connection between sociobiology and the claim that human beings are exclusively self-concerned, various forms of concern extending beyond oneself can seem problematic. The genes that survive are ones that design traits that maximize the chances of their survival. Forms of self-interest have an obvious function here. But what about concern for others or other forms of ethical or moral concern. What is their sociobiological status? Parental concern is relatively unproblematic, since it is explainable by "kin selection." But what about other forms? VI We can think about this in terms of the ability of human being to cooperate for mutual advantage, for example in Prisoner's Dilemma. Recall what Glaucon said about justice in Plato's Republic. People are willing to be just so that others will not be unjust to them. But do they have any motivation to be just or fair in itself. Contrast: A. Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma--tit for tat B. What about "one shot" Prisoner's Dilemma? Next time we will consider various motivations that enable individuals to "solve" Prisoner's Dilemma situations, and which may well have a sociobiological explanation.