Re: [Pen-l] Diamond vs. the GGS Hypothesis

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

On May 11, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Louis Proyect quoted:

> Sociobiology is, in my view, a deeply suspect enterprise. It risks a  
> double jeopardy. One problem is that by explaining some unpleasant  
> aspect of human behaviour - aggression, rape, war - in terms of the  
> allegedly similar actions performed by animals, there is a risk of  
> excusing the behaviour. To describe aggression, say, as ''natural'',  
> because animals living in a state of nature exhibit aggression, is  
> not very far from expressing approval of it: as the supermarkets and  
> the advertising men know very well, the word ''natural'' has become  
> virtually synomymous with ''good''. It is of little avail to claim  
> that it has a specialised usage, which means ''living in a state of  
> nature'', because the moral ambiguity is now inherent in the word.

As Stephen Jay Gould said somewhere, the problem with using examples  
from nature is that you can always find something to support any  
claim. You could find support for competition or cooperation, leading  
you nowhere.

Doug
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l