When it comes to explaining human behavior, just about every answer combines some elements from the categories conveniently labeled as "nature" and "nurture."
In this context, nature is a category that includes all biological, and more specifically genetic causes for human behavior. You might say that these are "internal" explanations for human behavior.
Nurture is a category that includes all of the environmental factors that explain human behavior. This includes the physical environment, such as the climate and topography where someone might live, as well as the social environment, such as the economic and political systems in place where a person lives.
People tend to try to get a lot of mileage out of explanations appealing to social factors. Of course, a lot of human behavior is explained by social factors. However, this cannot be the ultimate explanation of all human behavior. It's plausible to think that human beings existed before social systems existed, since social systems are human constructs.
So what were people like before the advent of society? This question is of interest to many people, including myself. A lot of people wonder if human beings are inherently good or evil, or if they're inherently selfish or altruistic. Knowing what human beings were like before they organized into social groups may be illuminating in this respect.
How do we know what they were like? Well, we'll never know for sure. If you identify as part of some religious tradition, then you probably some kind of origin story that's supposed to explain mankind's initial state.
Let's set those aside for now and explore non-religious accounts. From, the general consensus regarding the origins of human beings is that they are the products of a long evolutionary process. If we accept that, then we need to piece together a story about how human beings came to be what they are now.
We can infer that at least some behavior of human beings is explained as a result of genetic inheritance. So, we can investigate the behavior of other primates or evolutionary ancestors to get an idea of what human beings were getting passed down to them.
That's one piece of the puzzle. From here, the key is to find roughly where human beings began to abide by some,kind of social contract, i.e. when they began to set aside immediate personal wants in favor of gains had by cooperation. Around here is where we can start asking questions about the initial formation of social groups. For instance, it is conventional wisdom to think that early social groups were hunters and gatherers. How did they behave in those groups? How were responsibilities delegated, and why? For instance, it is common to think that the men were the hunters and the women were the gatherers. Was this actually the case? If yes, then why? Did it have to do with physiological differences?
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Ethical relativism and high stakes conflict
Here's a thought experiment that I sometimes give to my students if I'm teaching ethics.
Suppose that you have a fundamental moral disagreement with someone very close to you, say a wife or husband. The moral disagreement is very high stakes, i.e. it's extremely important to both parties. Let's also suppose that the disagreement plays out in a situation where the outcome either favors one side or the other (so, not both, not neither).
Here's an example that I use to make things more concrete.
Suppose that you and your partner have a child that, because of some terrible circumstance, is now currently in a persistent vegetative state. The probability that the child recovers is very low. The two of disagree as to whether the child's life should be terminated. One of you wants to terminate, and thinks that it's morally permissible. The other thinks that it isn't morally permissible, and does not want to terminate the child's life.
Obviously this decision would matter, and the result will favor one individual, and not the other.
Suppose that you find yourself in a situation like this, and suppose also that you're an ethical relativist. How are you going to resolve this situation?
It seems that a situation like this will be resolved only through conflict, manipulation, or brute force.
Why is this?
Disagreements are resolved by appeal to some third party information or principle that all disagreeing parties recognize as authoritative. If Joe and I disagree about the score of last night's game, and if we both recognize espn.com as an authority, we can resolve our disagreement by checking the website.
But, if you're a relativist, and you're in a moral disagreement, what can you appeal to in order to resolve the disagreement? If you're a relativist of the subjectivist variety, then only authority presiding over moral is your own beliefs.
People don't think that relativism is a problem because they can ignore a lot of moral disagreement. All you need to do is hang out with like minded people and keep everyone else at arm's length. At that point, it's easy to be "tolerant" and to "agree to disagree."
Things aren't always so easy. Perhaps it is easy for individuals to avoid disagreement, but it becomes increasingly difficult for ethically diverse groups living in the same space to avoid moral disagreements. What are you going to do, then?
Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s. You had two groups living in the same space that disagreed about how one of those groups should be treated. This disagreement mattered, and you couldn't just walk away from it. What are you going to do? If you're a relativist, you can't try to appeal to some greater moral principle to resolve the disagreement. This was the approach that Martin Luther King, Jr. took. This conciliatory approach requires some form of ethical objectivism, and of course King was no relativist about ethics.
So, what do you do if you're not an objectivist about morals? You fight until you either win or die, I suppose.
Suppose that you have a fundamental moral disagreement with someone very close to you, say a wife or husband. The moral disagreement is very high stakes, i.e. it's extremely important to both parties. Let's also suppose that the disagreement plays out in a situation where the outcome either favors one side or the other (so, not both, not neither).
Here's an example that I use to make things more concrete.
Suppose that you and your partner have a child that, because of some terrible circumstance, is now currently in a persistent vegetative state. The probability that the child recovers is very low. The two of disagree as to whether the child's life should be terminated. One of you wants to terminate, and thinks that it's morally permissible. The other thinks that it isn't morally permissible, and does not want to terminate the child's life.
Obviously this decision would matter, and the result will favor one individual, and not the other.
Suppose that you find yourself in a situation like this, and suppose also that you're an ethical relativist. How are you going to resolve this situation?
It seems that a situation like this will be resolved only through conflict, manipulation, or brute force.
Why is this?
Disagreements are resolved by appeal to some third party information or principle that all disagreeing parties recognize as authoritative. If Joe and I disagree about the score of last night's game, and if we both recognize espn.com as an authority, we can resolve our disagreement by checking the website.
But, if you're a relativist, and you're in a moral disagreement, what can you appeal to in order to resolve the disagreement? If you're a relativist of the subjectivist variety, then only authority presiding over moral is your own beliefs.
People don't think that relativism is a problem because they can ignore a lot of moral disagreement. All you need to do is hang out with like minded people and keep everyone else at arm's length. At that point, it's easy to be "tolerant" and to "agree to disagree."
Things aren't always so easy. Perhaps it is easy for individuals to avoid disagreement, but it becomes increasingly difficult for ethically diverse groups living in the same space to avoid moral disagreements. What are you going to do, then?
Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s. You had two groups living in the same space that disagreed about how one of those groups should be treated. This disagreement mattered, and you couldn't just walk away from it. What are you going to do? If you're a relativist, you can't try to appeal to some greater moral principle to resolve the disagreement. This was the approach that Martin Luther King, Jr. took. This conciliatory approach requires some form of ethical objectivism, and of course King was no relativist about ethics.
So, what do you do if you're not an objectivist about morals? You fight until you either win or die, I suppose.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Analyzing Teaching
I've been teaching at the college level for almost nine years. This is the longest I've held down any kind of job. Among all of the jobs that I've had, most of which are in retail, this is by far the job that I enjoy the most. I feel a bit anxious as it may come to an end as I complete graduate school. Getting a job as a philosophy professor is not all that different from trying to get drafted to a professional sports team as a collegiate athlete.
Anyways, I have a lot of interest in teaching, and have put some amount of thought into it. I figure I'd lay out some of thoughts here in the form of an analysis.
So what exactly is teaching? Let's start at the most general level. First, there is the descriptive/normative distinction. What is it that teachers actually do, and what should they do? I'll start with the first.
Anytime you interact with someone, and the goal of that interaction is to impart knowledge on that individual, you are teaching. Knowledge in this case could be a "knowing that" kind of knowledge, in which you are conveying some amount of information, or it could be a "knowing how" kind of knowledge, where you are trying to impart some sort of skill or ability.
The "knowing that" and "knowing how" distinction is important, as we shall see below.
The rough definition given above should be good enough for this little essay. There might be some borderline cases that don't fit the definition, but I don't think we should be worried about them.
If that is what teaching is. Then what should good teaching look like? This depends on the context, as teaching occurs in a variety of situations.
The context that is relevant here is institutionalized teaching, i.e. the kind of teaching that you see in elementary, middle, high schools, and in college. What are teachers supposed to do in these contexts. What are they supposed to convey?
The conventional thought regarding institutionalized teaching is that it's all about the conveyance of "knowing that" knowledge. Teachers are tasked with transferring information. It doesn't take long to realize that this view is incomplete. It is true that part of what teachers do is transfer a body of information, but surely teaching from kindergarten through college is more than that.
Let's look at it from the other end. What is the point of going to school as a student? What is the goal or purpose? The answer is not so clear cut, as there are probably several goals. Two goals that are prominent in a liberal democratic society like the United States are political and economic in nature. The political goal of education is to produce effective participants in the democratic process. The democratic goal of education is to produce individuals who effectively contribute to a more or less capitalist economic system.
What does it mean to be an effective participant in the democratic process? It probably means being able to make informed decisions about public policies and, in the case of our government, to be able to choose an individual that best represents those informed decisions in local, state, or federal government.
Capitalist systems are usually about growth. So, to effectively contribute to a capitalist system is to contribute to the system's growth. How society grows economically will be a function of various factors, which can include manufacturing, information, service, finance, etc.
So, given that those are the goals of an American student, education is recognized as a means to that end. Thus, what teaching is supposed to be at the institutional level is the imparting of knowledge (both knowing that and knowing how) required for the student to meet both goals.
Of course this is still an incomplete picture of what teaching in a school setting is all about, but it's a start.
Anyways, I have a lot of interest in teaching, and have put some amount of thought into it. I figure I'd lay out some of thoughts here in the form of an analysis.
So what exactly is teaching? Let's start at the most general level. First, there is the descriptive/normative distinction. What is it that teachers actually do, and what should they do? I'll start with the first.
Anytime you interact with someone, and the goal of that interaction is to impart knowledge on that individual, you are teaching. Knowledge in this case could be a "knowing that" kind of knowledge, in which you are conveying some amount of information, or it could be a "knowing how" kind of knowledge, where you are trying to impart some sort of skill or ability.
The "knowing that" and "knowing how" distinction is important, as we shall see below.
The rough definition given above should be good enough for this little essay. There might be some borderline cases that don't fit the definition, but I don't think we should be worried about them.
If that is what teaching is. Then what should good teaching look like? This depends on the context, as teaching occurs in a variety of situations.
The context that is relevant here is institutionalized teaching, i.e. the kind of teaching that you see in elementary, middle, high schools, and in college. What are teachers supposed to do in these contexts. What are they supposed to convey?
The conventional thought regarding institutionalized teaching is that it's all about the conveyance of "knowing that" knowledge. Teachers are tasked with transferring information. It doesn't take long to realize that this view is incomplete. It is true that part of what teachers do is transfer a body of information, but surely teaching from kindergarten through college is more than that.
Let's look at it from the other end. What is the point of going to school as a student? What is the goal or purpose? The answer is not so clear cut, as there are probably several goals. Two goals that are prominent in a liberal democratic society like the United States are political and economic in nature. The political goal of education is to produce effective participants in the democratic process. The democratic goal of education is to produce individuals who effectively contribute to a more or less capitalist economic system.
What does it mean to be an effective participant in the democratic process? It probably means being able to make informed decisions about public policies and, in the case of our government, to be able to choose an individual that best represents those informed decisions in local, state, or federal government.
Capitalist systems are usually about growth. So, to effectively contribute to a capitalist system is to contribute to the system's growth. How society grows economically will be a function of various factors, which can include manufacturing, information, service, finance, etc.
So, given that those are the goals of an American student, education is recognized as a means to that end. Thus, what teaching is supposed to be at the institutional level is the imparting of knowledge (both knowing that and knowing how) required for the student to meet both goals.
Of course this is still an incomplete picture of what teaching in a school setting is all about, but it's a start.