![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Told to take this discussion somewhere else, I'm dumping my expanded thoughts here.
"We're not animals." There's the biologist response, of "oh, yes we are." There's the logician response, of "if we're not animals, then what was the point of bringing up homosexual behavior in the wild? And then animal rape should be irrelevant to us." And there's the philosopher response of muttering about the naturalistic fallacy. Whether rape or gayness are natural, or happen in other species, is irrelevant to their wrongness or rightness for us. Rape's wrong because it hurts people. Gay behavior is okay because it doesn't. Evolutionary background is irrelevant. We can use condemnation and prison to discourage behavior we don't like regardless of the reasons behind it. Murder's natural, under some circumstances; infanticide is natural. But we don't make excuses for those.
"Naturalness" would be relevant only if a behavior was *so* natural that it wasn't controllable, that the threat of punishment wouldn't deter men from raping. But being imprisoned would still prevent the rapist from committing further rapes (at least, outside of prison); "I can't help myself" isn't exactly a good argument for being allowed out on the street. And if men were that much of an uncontrollable ravaging horde then female separatism -- or isolation of males -- would make a lot of sense. Fortunately, morality, empathy, and fear are (imperfectly) effective in restraining aggression.
Evolution isn't an excuse for bad behavior; bad excuses aren't a reason for denying facts of natural history.
Thoughts? Can this be said better? Am I wrong?
"We're not animals." There's the biologist response, of "oh, yes we are." There's the logician response, of "if we're not animals, then what was the point of bringing up homosexual behavior in the wild? And then animal rape should be irrelevant to us." And there's the philosopher response of muttering about the naturalistic fallacy. Whether rape or gayness are natural, or happen in other species, is irrelevant to their wrongness or rightness for us. Rape's wrong because it hurts people. Gay behavior is okay because it doesn't. Evolutionary background is irrelevant. We can use condemnation and prison to discourage behavior we don't like regardless of the reasons behind it. Murder's natural, under some circumstances; infanticide is natural. But we don't make excuses for those.
"Naturalness" would be relevant only if a behavior was *so* natural that it wasn't controllable, that the threat of punishment wouldn't deter men from raping. But being imprisoned would still prevent the rapist from committing further rapes (at least, outside of prison); "I can't help myself" isn't exactly a good argument for being allowed out on the street. And if men were that much of an uncontrollable ravaging horde then female separatism -- or isolation of males -- would make a lot of sense. Fortunately, morality, empathy, and fear are (imperfectly) effective in restraining aggression.
Evolution isn't an excuse for bad behavior; bad excuses aren't a reason for denying facts of natural history.
Thoughts? Can this be said better? Am I wrong?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-12 08:03 (UTC)From:The reductio end point of the direction you argue in seems to be "Darwin has been invoked to defend racial eugenics and Social Darwinism, therefore evolution by natural selection must be wrong." You seem to be saying "sociobiology is used for bad purposes, so must be wrong." I haven't studied the history of social science, but I have read directly or summaries of Dawkins, Williams, Tooby and Cosmides, Hamilton, Haldane, Trivers, so I feel confident saying "the science is good, whatever misuses are made of it." And maybe, "the good science may not be what you think it is."
no subject
Date: 2007-11-12 08:20 (UTC)From:I believe that sociobiology became a major force in US biology in the early 1980s largely because of the conservative shift in US politics during that time, and that evo psych continues this trend. If I'm correct, then evo psych will significantly fall out of favor when US politics becomes significantly more progressive. Given that we seem on the edge (hopefully) of just such a transformation, I'm guessing that there will be actual data on this front in 4 or 5 years. If I'm correct, then by that time, most of the hot new theories will be discrediting evo psych, genetic determinism, and the various related ideas. I absolutely have no idea what these new theories will be, but if US politics shifts in a progressive direction, I'm quite convinced that US biology will follow suit.