Bayertz, Human Nature: How Normative Might It Be?, I. The Technological Contingency of Human Nature. II Difficulties with "Human Nature". II A.

by Corry Shores
[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]
[Posthumanism, Entry Directory]
[Bayertz' "Human Nature", Entry Directory]

[The following is summary.]

Kurt Bayertz

Human Nature: How Normative Might It Be?

II Difficulties with "Human Nature"

We want a normative concept of human nature. So we need an accurate definition. It need not be absolutely precise. But it must fulfil a practical function. It should allow us to differentiate legitimate from illegitimate uses of biotechnologies. To do so, it should demarcate the distinction between what is natural and what is unnatural.

II A. What Does "Nature" Mean?

Defining nature is already close to impossible. So defining human nature will be no easier.

We find these difficulties with clearly conceiving nature:

1) We often consider nature as constant and unchanging. But this is because we only see one small part of the larger historical picture. For example, ecological balances are unique evolutionary time periods. And we by chance are in one of these fleeting epochs.

2) We have semantic difficulties with the term "nature." For example, David Hume explains that the meaning of "nature" changes with the terms that we use to counter-define, such as "miracle," "what is usual," or "what is artificial."

3) The difference between natural and artificial is difficult to demarcate on the ontological level. Monod for example shows that we cannot distinguish the two by means of structural or functional characteristics. Do do so, we need to know the object's history. [also consider domesticated and bred animals and plants.]

Some might say that we can define human nature with the natural/artificial distinction. Our human nature is what we are before we make changes to ourselves. Thus skin is nature. Tatoos are artificial. Hearts: natural. Pacemakers: unnatural. So our nature is our body.

There are three reasons this interpretation seems adequate:

1) it corresponds to our intuition,

2) our body is part of nature, and

3) we are concerned with the ethics of biotechnological interventions, and these target the body.

Since we know how our body is made without our contribution, we know our ‘‘nature’’. (135b)

[Other entries in this series.]

Bayertz, Kurt. "Human Nature: How Normative Might It Be?" Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2003 28(2):131-150.

Available online at:

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/28/2/131