The term human nature is used in reference to what has been traditionally accepted as the unique and distinct characteristics of humans. Although few would deny the existence of such a characteristic, its origins and extent have not been definitively defined. This essay will examine the two opposing views on this topic, and explain their relationship. Mill’s concept of the necessity of uniqueness, as presented by On Liberty. Wilson’s belief that genes form the basis for all human action, which culminates in his notion of evolution ethics, as seen by Consilience. The essay’s conclusion will be that Mill and Wilson have contradictory ideas. It will demonstrate the contradictions created by their comparison, as well as provide a comment about the possible applicability.
Mill believes in the importance of individuality as the foundation for human nature. Without individuality, Mill claims that distinctive characteristics will disappear. Mill’s argument begins with his belief that every individual is capable of becoming a unique individual. Mill concludes that it is the privilege of every human to be able to interpret and use experience according to their own preferences.
Wilson, on the other hand, believes that individuality is not a factor in human nature. Wilson introduces his theory by stating that he is in agreement with the empiricist viewpoint (Wilson 263). This view states: “[moral guides are] contrivances (Wilson 260). Wilson clarifies the importance of his opinion by stating that human nature is a quality shared by all humans, and manifested through behavior, attitudes, and morally reasoned ethical standards (Wilson, 260). When viewed through the lens of empiricism it is possible to assert that ethical standards and behavior are determined by the genetic code of the mind. Wilson’s evolutionary ethics theory is based on the notion that society’s ethics can be dynamic and change over time. The logic is: (A) every moral predisposition is based on genetics; (B), those with certain attitudes become more desirable and are better suited for reproduction; C) the genes associated with these individuals’ tendencies increase in the genepool of the entire population and (D) subsequently, ethics in a given population will change. Wilson theorizes the limitation of human nature by the genetic pool of any given population.
The difference between the two ideas can be stark. While Mill seems to assume that individuality will allow human nature to grow and prosper, Wilson believes it has a limited potential and is only capable of changing gradually over time, and in populations rather than individuals. The two ideas may have a similar origin. Mill and Wilson both believe that human beings are a manifestation of our minds. It can be argued that their theories are similar in nature and do not contradict each other. To respond to this argument, it is best to look at the definitions each author uses to describe ‘the mind of man’. Mill views the mind as a tool used to develop opinions and understand circumstances. He accepts genetic codes, but maintains each individual has a different mind because of the unique experiences and influences they face. Wilson however, proposes that the individual’s DNA is translated directly into the mind. Therefore, it implies that the mental state will not change over the course of a lifetime. Wilson proposes a “group-mind” (Wilson, 288) that implies the human brain is not an individual product, but rather, a predetermined result. Mill and Wilson hold fundamentally divergent opinions about the nature, expression and potentials of human beings. Their ideas are in direct opposition, and this is the result.
If you have established that these ideas are contradictory, then it’s time to decide which is correct. You can do this by looking at the implications of both ideas. Mill’s idea alludes infinite possibilities, the possibility of perpetual growth and unique opinions. Wilson’s theories, on the other hand, suggest that expression is limited, growth and change are gradual, and opinions tend to be shared. Obviously, the applicability and validity of these models are open to question. Mill’s concept is more accurate and relevant in my opinion. Think about the differences in behavior and mannerisms amongst any group. As there is so much diversity, and such a wide range of expressions, it’s difficult to claim that genes are the cause for a population’s tendency towards homogeneity. Wilson asserts that the ethical code of a society changes gradually over generations (Wilson 280). This is not supported by a variety of examples. One example of this is the technological evolution of the 21st-century: in less that a decade the moral codes of many Western countries have shifted drastically and irreversibly. They are no longer the same. Education and the workplace are fundamentally different, as are the ideas of selfhood and society. These changes have occurred exponentially and, despite individual epigenetic preferences, it’s the human mind that is responsible for this progression. Wilson’s final theory is rebutted by the fact that the opposite responses to the theory are a disproof of the idea that a genetic base for human nature causes a convergence in social ethics and, subsequently, a prevalence of shared opinions. Wilson himself admits that there are different opinions. This fact proves that there is a plurality of views. In light of the information above, it is possible to conclude that Mill’s assertions, out of the two, are the most accurate.
Mill and Wilson explore, in On Liberty and Consilience respectively, the nature of humanity, what is unique and distinctively human. Mill believes that nurturing individuality is essential to the development and growth of the infinite human potential. Wilson, however, believes that the limits to human nature are implied by the evolutionary ethics of humanity and their genetic foundation. This essay aimed to highlight the contradictions of these two arguments. It did so by articulating a fundamental difference in the authors’ understandings of the mind. This exploration led to the conclusion that Mill’s idea is the best of the two because it can be applied in a realistic, relevant and beneficial way within the world of humans.
Mill, John Stuart. In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argued that individuals should be allowed to act freely in any way that does not cause harm to others. He argued that society should not attempt to control people’s behavior unless it could be proven that they were causing direct harm to someone else. Mill also argued that governments should not interfere with the free expression of opinion, as long as it was not inciting violence or hatred. The publication of Indianapolis was released by Hackett Publishing Company Inc. in 1859.
Consilience by Edward O. Wilson Vintage Books of New York published a 1999 edition.
