Hello All Can anyone recommend any useful sites for ethical issues associated with Milgram's (1963 or any interesting info would be much appreciated Alexia
------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM! Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter http://mail.giantcompany.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Allen Esterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Darwin's Truth, Jefferson's Vision > There's an article by the anthropologist Melvin Konner on sociobiology (or > evolutionary psychology) on the American Prospect website that some > TIPSters may find of interest. (It was originally published in 1999.) I've > reproduced below the introductory and concluding paragraphs to give a > taster of its content, but the whole article is well worth reading: > http://www.prospect.org/print/V10/45/konner-m.html. > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html > http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 > ------------------------------------------- > > Darwin's Truth, Jefferson's Vision > Sociobiology and the Politics of Human Nature > Melvin Konner > > [Introduction] > > As the new field of sociobiology has emerged during the past quarter > century, it has met with firm and unrelenting opposition from prominent > liberal critics. Sociobiology-also known as evolutionary psychology or > neo-Darwinian theory-holds that many patterns of human behavior have a > basis in evolution. Because this approach often suggests biological > explanations of gender roles, it affronts many feminists. It has also > drawn opposition from a group of biologists on the left who have raised > general scientific and philosophical objections and have had great > influence in shaping liberal opinion. The scientific critics have included > highly respected figures in biology: Ruth Hubbard, Stephen Jay Gould, > Richard Lewontin, and Jonathan Beckwith, among others. None in this group > had done direct research on human behavior when sociobiology first emerged > in the 1970s. Nonetheless, they immediately perceived a grave threat to > liberal values, and their opposition has persisted ever since. > > However respected the source, the criticism from this group has had little > effect on the direction of scientific research: sociobiology is now firmly > established as an accepted branch of normal science. As a result, liberal > opinion about sociobiology has increasingly diverged from scientific > opinion. If liberals are to understand why this has happened, they need to > consider the possibility that Gould, Lewontin, and other prominent > scientific critics were wrong in their attack on sociobiology in the first > place. > > Liberal uneasiness about sociobiology is understandable. A bad odor hangs > about any social application of Darwinian ideas. Right-wing intellectuals > in the past have abused Darwin's legacy in efforts to justify colonialism, > imperialism, racism, and even mass murder. But the old ideological > associations of scientific ideas are sometimes a poor guide to their > present incarnations. To be sure, some conservative intellectuals infer > from sociobiology that liberal reforms are doomed by human nature. But > sociobiology today is not nineteenth-century social Dar winism reborn. As > I intend to show, there is no conflict between liberal political > philosophy and sociobiology. Indeed, quite the contrary is true. A deep > understanding of the foundations of liberalism and the fundamental > processes of Dar winian reasoning will readily show that the opposition to > sociobiology has been based on a superficial view of both. The > across-the-board attack on sociobiology was ill-conceived to begin with, > and it is time to put it to rest. > > [....] > > [Conclusion] > > This perhaps is the enduring implication of Darwin's theory for liberal > political philosophy: assume the worst and you can still get something > workable, based on Thomas Jefferson and not Thomas Hobbes. Of course, I > may merely be spinning pseudoscientific tales to justify the status quo. > But at present I fail to see the evidence for a better way to look at > evolution. > > Personally, I favor political economies like those of northern Europe over > the one we have now in the United States, and I have voted that preference > to whatever extent possible for more than three decades. Around halfway > through that period, I concluded that the neo-Darwinians had a very useful > way of looking at evolution, and I accepted it. Why didn't it change my > vote? > > First of all, because my political views are based as much on "ought" as > on "is." I support liberal economic programs because I want to live in a > decent community. My definition of "decent" doesn't depend on one or > another theory of evolution. But in addition, because I do see human > nature as an obstacle to decency, I support programs that buffer us > against the loss of it. Newt Gingrich and Milton Friedman must have a far > more sanguine view of human nature than I do, or they would surely not be > heartless enough to want to give it the free rein of an unalloyed market > economy. > > In part, it is because I take a dim view of human nature as an > evolutionary product that I reject their view. Virtually everyone in the > world has decided that economies don't work without more or less free > markets at their center. What is up for further discussion is only how > much we will care about those who lose out in open competition-including > the sick, the old, and the very young. Human nature was not designed by > evolution to take care of the needs of these people automatically. > Therefore only programs and supports deliberately designed by a > collective, humane, political will-a will that also restrains the worst > excesses of markets-can, after wide debate, create a decent community and > set some limit on selfishness. > > http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V10/45/konner-m.html > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
