Saturday, October 2, 2010

Nature And Nurture

Despite his recent admonition to read any argument sympathetically the first time, FLG couldn't live up to his advice when reading this article by Ned Resnikoff on the lack of a moral case for tax cuts. Standard shit. Rawls. But this part on infinitely malleable human nature got to me:
The only thing this debate about who deserves what really tells us is that very few people are willing to admit just how insubstantial and malleable our innate character really is. When you control for environmental, genetic, social, historical, and biological factors, what differentiates my own distinguishing features from Charles Manson’s -- or, for that matter, Obama’s, Palin’s, Lincoln’s or yours -- is either imperceptible or completely nonexistent.

So, if FLG is getting this straight, if you ignore, or rather keep constant, Nature AND Nurture, then we're all the same? Wow. Insightful.

My problem with the article is my problem with Rawls, which I've detailed before somewhere and won't bother with.

No comments:

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.