Justin Schwartz
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (PhD)
Debate about legal and policy reform has been haunted by a pernicious confusion about human nature, the idea that it is a set of rigid dispositions, today generally conceived as genetic, that is manifested the same way in all circumstances. Opponents of egalitarian alternatives argue that we cannot depart far from the status quo because human nature stands in the way. Advocates of such reforms too often deny the existence of human nature because, sharing this conception, they think it would prevent changes they deem desirable. Both views rest on deep errors about what it is to have a nature and how genetics works. Human nature, like the nature of anything else, is a set of potentials to behave certain ways in given environments, not a nonsocial genetic something that inevitably produces the same result in any environment. To say that existing inequalities, are due to our genes, inalterable because heritable, ignores that genetic propensities may be differently manifested in different environments. Heritability has meaning only relative to an environment and a population and implies nothing about inevitability. A better sort of inegalitarian argument is that a proposed reform, given our nature, would be too costly even if possible. However, this sort of argument is too rarely supported by evidence and generally ignores the costs of existing inequalities. But egalitarians err in supposing that, if behavior is unconstrained by biology, the status quo is easily alterable. The environment may be extremely hard to change. Legal and policy debate should adopt a correct understanding of human nature as a set of propensities and ask of any proposed reform agreed to be otherwise desirable what and how alterable are its causes, genetic, environmental, or more accurately both.
Keywords Human Nature  Social Change  Nature and Nurture  Genetic Determinism  Science as Ideology  Justification of Inequality by Nature  Egalitarianism  Women's Subordination  Class Inequality  Misuse of Biology
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Nature Via Nurture:. [REVIEW]Massimo Pigliucci - 2003 - Nature Genetics 35 (3):199-200.
Perceptions of Nature, Nurture and Behaviour.Mairi Levitt - 2013 - Life Sciences, Society and Policy 9 (1):1-11.
Human Nature: An Oxymoron?David Heyd - 2003 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (2):151 – 169.
Does the Idea of Wilderness Need a Defence?Paul M. Keeling - 2008 - Environmental Values 17 (4):505-519.
The Call of Nature.Charles T. Rubin - 2009 - Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (2):173-192.
Genetic Enhancement, Human Nature, and Rights.T. Mcconnell - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (4):415-428.


Added to PP index

Total views
134 ( #75,896 of 2,432,774 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #40,687 of 2,432,774 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes