Folks today are accustomed to having traditional and time-honored views of the world undermined (or threatened to be undermined) by the sciences. Everything from folk remedies for colds to the existence of a deity or deities have been subject to scientifically grounded challenges. Perhaps as a consequence, a surprising number of people have retreated into intellectual nihilism, claiming that, "All truth is relative to the individual", or "All truth is personal". But such nihilism is so poorly grounded in reason and evidence that it scarcely rises above the level of a superstition.
To me, one of the most significant notions the sciences have undermined is the notion that humans are a tabula rassa at birth, a "blank slate". This has been done relatively recently, but in my opinion, it's been done conclusively. As recently as the 1960s, the predominant opinion in the sciences dealing with human nature was that all humans were born with little or no built-in mental content. Some fields of study, perhaps most notably women's studies, still cling as much as they can to the notion, but even in those fields, I think the handwriting is on the wall.
But why is the notion that humans are born blank slates important?
Simply put, the notion is a crucial justification for nearly any kind of democracy. Beyond that, it is a crucial justification for the equal treatment of all under the law (including, of course, the notion that no one -- not even the most powerful elite -- is above the law). And in a larger sense, it undermines the very notions of "fairness" and "justice" themselves. In short, it is foundational to any political, social, and economic system that would seek to optimize human freedoms and liberties -- especially on the basis that all humans have an equal ability to use those freedoms and liberties in order to achieve well-being, self-fulfillment, or self-flourishing.
To be sure, there are ways to ground those ideals in something besides the notion we are all born blank slates. For example, the Christian notion that "all souls are equal before God" does just as well as the secular notion we are all born blank slates, and some might argue it does even better, to ground democracy, rule of law, fairness, justice, human freedoms and liberties, etc. But I would argue that even the Christian notion is at least seriously qualified by the same science that undermines the notion of our being blank slates.
Perhaps the best way to see how important the notion of our being blank slates is to providing a basis for asserting the validity of our common ideals is to consider the question in a negative light. If it could be demonstrated that humans were not only born with various inheritable traits, but that there were significant differences between people in which traits they were born with, then wouldn't that pose a challenge to any notion humans ought to be treated equitably?
In the simplest example, if you are born with grossly more intelligence than I am born with, then doesn't that suggest -- all else being equal -- that we'd both be generally better off if you were to lead us, rather than me? Or at least suggest that I have less right to lead you than you have to lead me, and thus call into question democracy?
Moreover, if our traits are truly hereditary, doesn't that advocate for an hereditary aristocracy of some sort -- perhaps even one lead by an hereditary monarch?
If thinking of the world as divided between aristocrats and commoners seems too old fashioned to you, then think of the world as divided between "makers" and "takers", or "producers" and "parasites" -- for those things are sometimes defined in ways that seem to depend on seeing people as having grossly different traits from birth. See, for example, Ayn Rand's hero, Francisco d'Anconia, in her novel Atlas Shrugged, who she implausibly describes as a child prodigy at almost everything, and the "climax of the d'Anconia line".
But it goes further than that, much further. Why should you and I be considered equals under the law if it could be demonstrated that you are born my better in any number of ways? Suppose I were born with a predisposition to criminal behavior while you were not. Should the courts sentence us the same for the same crime, knowing that I'm more likely to repeat the crime than are you? On what basis can it be said the courts have treated us fairly or justly if they do not fully take into account the significance of such a difference? And we might even ask, if it could be known that I have some sort of inborn predisposition to criminal behavior, on what grounds could we oppose limiting my freedoms and liberties from birth more than yours are limited?
Please note: The point here is not that the blank slate notion's destruction by the sciences will inevitably lead to a world in which our current ideals are trashed, but only that its destruction amounts to the removal of one key support for those ideals, and therefore brings us that much closer to such a world becoming the reality.
As I see it, the notion we are born blank slates has been conclusively defeated by the sciences. That defeat has weakened the philosophical justification for democracy -- and so much else besides. But is there anything that can replace it?
I think one bright ray of sunlight here is John Rawls' Theory of Justice. Writing in the early 1970s, Rawls proposed that certain general principles of justice and legal organization could be grounded on the decisions people would be most likely to make if, in a hypothetical scenario, they were asked to chose the rules for a society that they would afterwards be forced to live in. But with this key provision: At the time they chose the rules, they would not know what position they were to have in that society. In other words, they would not know whether they would be rich or poor, a member of the majority or of a minority, etc. Rawls hypothesized that people would, if ignorant of their fate, pick rules that were more or less just for all.
Last, we might wonder why thinking about such abstract subjects as the philosophical underpinnings of democracy, the rule of law, fairness, justice, human freedoms and liberties, and even the right to happiness should be of much concern to us? Why be bothered at all if the sciences have undermined a philosophical foundation for them?
I think the vast majority of us live cheerfully enough without giving such things a second thought. However, the vast majority of us aren't the world's movers and shakers. The movers and shakers are a minority among us -- and for them, the philosophical grounds for our ideals are typically of more than idle interest. They are typically motivating. Sometimes that motivation is obvious, as it was with the American revolutionaries. But sometimes, it is less than obvious, as it is with the current leaders of China. Their vision of human nature and their ideals for humanity are dramatically at odds with the American revolutionaries, and much less publicly sung than the revolutionaries views and values, but nonetheless implicit in the society they are building.
Questions? Comments?
__________________________
For a very different take on the consequences of science's defeat of the blank slate notion, see Stephen Pinker's book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Pinker and I agree that the Blank Slate has been defeated. Pinker, however, argues that that is a good thing on several grounds. And he's probably right since I am by nature always wrong.
To me, one of the most significant notions the sciences have undermined is the notion that humans are a tabula rassa at birth, a "blank slate". This has been done relatively recently, but in my opinion, it's been done conclusively. As recently as the 1960s, the predominant opinion in the sciences dealing with human nature was that all humans were born with little or no built-in mental content. Some fields of study, perhaps most notably women's studies, still cling as much as they can to the notion, but even in those fields, I think the handwriting is on the wall.
But why is the notion that humans are born blank slates important?
Simply put, the notion is a crucial justification for nearly any kind of democracy. Beyond that, it is a crucial justification for the equal treatment of all under the law (including, of course, the notion that no one -- not even the most powerful elite -- is above the law). And in a larger sense, it undermines the very notions of "fairness" and "justice" themselves. In short, it is foundational to any political, social, and economic system that would seek to optimize human freedoms and liberties -- especially on the basis that all humans have an equal ability to use those freedoms and liberties in order to achieve well-being, self-fulfillment, or self-flourishing.
To be sure, there are ways to ground those ideals in something besides the notion we are all born blank slates. For example, the Christian notion that "all souls are equal before God" does just as well as the secular notion we are all born blank slates, and some might argue it does even better, to ground democracy, rule of law, fairness, justice, human freedoms and liberties, etc. But I would argue that even the Christian notion is at least seriously qualified by the same science that undermines the notion of our being blank slates.
Perhaps the best way to see how important the notion of our being blank slates is to providing a basis for asserting the validity of our common ideals is to consider the question in a negative light. If it could be demonstrated that humans were not only born with various inheritable traits, but that there were significant differences between people in which traits they were born with, then wouldn't that pose a challenge to any notion humans ought to be treated equitably?
In the simplest example, if you are born with grossly more intelligence than I am born with, then doesn't that suggest -- all else being equal -- that we'd both be generally better off if you were to lead us, rather than me? Or at least suggest that I have less right to lead you than you have to lead me, and thus call into question democracy?
Moreover, if our traits are truly hereditary, doesn't that advocate for an hereditary aristocracy of some sort -- perhaps even one lead by an hereditary monarch?
If thinking of the world as divided between aristocrats and commoners seems too old fashioned to you, then think of the world as divided between "makers" and "takers", or "producers" and "parasites" -- for those things are sometimes defined in ways that seem to depend on seeing people as having grossly different traits from birth. See, for example, Ayn Rand's hero, Francisco d'Anconia, in her novel Atlas Shrugged, who she implausibly describes as a child prodigy at almost everything, and the "climax of the d'Anconia line".
But it goes further than that, much further. Why should you and I be considered equals under the law if it could be demonstrated that you are born my better in any number of ways? Suppose I were born with a predisposition to criminal behavior while you were not. Should the courts sentence us the same for the same crime, knowing that I'm more likely to repeat the crime than are you? On what basis can it be said the courts have treated us fairly or justly if they do not fully take into account the significance of such a difference? And we might even ask, if it could be known that I have some sort of inborn predisposition to criminal behavior, on what grounds could we oppose limiting my freedoms and liberties from birth more than yours are limited?
Please note: The point here is not that the blank slate notion's destruction by the sciences will inevitably lead to a world in which our current ideals are trashed, but only that its destruction amounts to the removal of one key support for those ideals, and therefore brings us that much closer to such a world becoming the reality.
As I see it, the notion we are born blank slates has been conclusively defeated by the sciences. That defeat has weakened the philosophical justification for democracy -- and so much else besides. But is there anything that can replace it?
I think one bright ray of sunlight here is John Rawls' Theory of Justice. Writing in the early 1970s, Rawls proposed that certain general principles of justice and legal organization could be grounded on the decisions people would be most likely to make if, in a hypothetical scenario, they were asked to chose the rules for a society that they would afterwards be forced to live in. But with this key provision: At the time they chose the rules, they would not know what position they were to have in that society. In other words, they would not know whether they would be rich or poor, a member of the majority or of a minority, etc. Rawls hypothesized that people would, if ignorant of their fate, pick rules that were more or less just for all.
Last, we might wonder why thinking about such abstract subjects as the philosophical underpinnings of democracy, the rule of law, fairness, justice, human freedoms and liberties, and even the right to happiness should be of much concern to us? Why be bothered at all if the sciences have undermined a philosophical foundation for them?
I think the vast majority of us live cheerfully enough without giving such things a second thought. However, the vast majority of us aren't the world's movers and shakers. The movers and shakers are a minority among us -- and for them, the philosophical grounds for our ideals are typically of more than idle interest. They are typically motivating. Sometimes that motivation is obvious, as it was with the American revolutionaries. But sometimes, it is less than obvious, as it is with the current leaders of China. Their vision of human nature and their ideals for humanity are dramatically at odds with the American revolutionaries, and much less publicly sung than the revolutionaries views and values, but nonetheless implicit in the society they are building.
Questions? Comments?
__________________________
For a very different take on the consequences of science's defeat of the blank slate notion, see Stephen Pinker's book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Pinker and I agree that the Blank Slate has been defeated. Pinker, however, argues that that is a good thing on several grounds. And he's probably right since I am by nature always wrong.
I grew up in the sixties and seventies when you could not pick up many a textbook in the sciences dealing with human nature that didn't start with a prominent description of human nature as a blank slate.