The evolution of human nature and its implications for politics: a critique

Abstract

This paper examines the tradition of attempts to support particular political or social views by referring to biological knowledge about human nature. It is argued that such arguments involve two steps, an argument from biological knowledge to general claims about human nature, and a normative argument from such general claims to the desirability of a particular social order. The concept of human nature serves as a bridge concept connecting these argumentative steps. Furthermore it is argued that both argumentative steps face serious problems, as the first argument stands on a weak biological basis and the second argument is unable to arbitrate between competing political or social positions. By examining four examples of arguments that attempt to connect biological knowledge to political/social views (by Peter Kropotkin, Peter Singer, Richard Alexander and Larry Arnhart) it is shown what such arguments can achieve, and what not. It is concluded that the proper role of arguments from biology to society is to serve as compatibility checks on our political, economic, and societal views, but not to provide actual support for some political/social views over competing ones.