Darwin and "The Descent of Man" : Thought's on 'Human Nature'

What is 'Human Nature'?

Does such a thing exist? Can we use such a term to generalize the habits and attributes of all human beings? Do all human beings even share the same or similar attributes?

In the Victorian Era, John Stuart Mill "On Nature" explained how the words nature and natural had become so entangled with foreign meaning and association, so foreign from the actual meaning of the words that they became sources of false philosophy and worse, false morality. What are laws of Nature? One could propose that a fairly reliable law could be that all animal life needs air and food to sustain it or perhaps the law of gravity. But can we assign any fixed conditions to human behavior? Mill's view of common use of the term Human Nature is that it often tends to refer to ethical behaviour rather than actual behaviour: the way human beings should act over the way they actually do. Any mode of thinking, feeling, or acting that is considered 'according to nature ' is usually accepted as a strong argument for its goodness.

However, Mill's view of real Nature was not the ideal standard to which human morality should be attributed, but a cruel world without mercy or discrimination in which all animals are tortured, or murdered and are (shudder) dirty. Mill stated "Conformity to nature, has no connection with right and wrong." (Buckler, 340) It is irrational to connect the two for "all human action whatever, consists in altering, and all useful action in improving, the spontaneous course of nature" (Buckler, 342). Moreover it is immoral because anyone who actually acted in accordance to nature would end up acting as the 'wickedest of men'. Nature is instinct, whereas society is man's control over instinct.

This is interesting in how it relates to what Darwin said in the The Descent of Man: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-04.html

"My object in this chapter is to shew that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"...
Darwin continues to explain that most of the mental faculties that many men ascribe to only human beings actually also exist in many animals:

"All have the same senses, intuitions, and sensations,- similar passions, affections, and emotions, even the more complex ones, such as jealousy, suspicion, emulation, gratitude, and magnanimity; they practice deceit and are revengeful; they are sometimes susceptible to ridicule, and even have a sense of humor; they feel wonder and curiosity; they possess the same faculties of imitation, attention, deliberation, choice, memory, imagination, the association of ideas, and reason, though in very different degrees."

He goes on to include the attributes of progressive development, language, a sense of beauty and even a belief in God as something that man shares with his fellow animals. Overall, man is essentially no different from his fellow animals in Nature. In fact, even animals have moral capabilities.

What is interesting is what Darwin prescribes about some of the more persistent human attributes:

"* Enmity or hatred seems also to be a highly persistent feeling, perhaps more so than any
other that can be named. Envy is defined as hatred of another for some excellence or success; and Bacon insists (Essay ix.), "Of all other affections envy is the most importune and continual." Dogs are very apt to hate both strange men and strange dogs, especially if they live near at hand, but do not belong to the same family, tribe, or clan; this feeling would thus seem to be innate, and is certainly a most persistent one. It seems to be the complement and converse of the true social instinct. From what we hear of savages, it would appear that something of the same kind holds good with them. If this be so, it would be a small step in any one to transfer such feelings to any member of the same tribe if he had done him an injury and had become his enemy. Nor is it probable that the primitive conscience would reproach a man for injuring his enemy; rather it would reproach him, if he had not revenged himself. To do good in return for evil, to love your enemy, is a height of morality to which it may be doubted whether the social instincts would, by themselves, have ever led us.

At the moment of action, man will no doubt be apt to follow the stronger impulse; and though this may occasionally prompt him to the noblest deeds, it will more commonly lead him to gratify his own desires at the expense of other men."

Here, Darwin states that hatred is only natural, for why would you love someone who does you wrong? The edicts of Christianity such as 'love thy neighbor' and 'turn the other cheek' hardly seem in keeping with Darwin's dog eat dog kind of world.

Darwin does go on to say that it is likely that man will feel remorse after committing an act against a neighbor, because he wishes the good opinion of his other fellow men. However, one wonders if that is necessarily remorse or simply the appearance of it in order to secure one's place in society.

In addition, there is also the more troubling question of whether the society itself is unchanging in its moral structure. For example, what happens when you have a society, not unlike today, where self-serving, individualistic attitudes are embraced and even celebrated? Many modern day celebrities or businessmen could be viewed in this light. Today, a person that goes after what they want, is aggressive and domineering (sometimes even to the point of injuring others) is often celebrated as successful and a go-getter.

It seems as though Mill and Darwin were saying very different things. Mill was saying that we are better for going against nature, every action that is sane and progressive in human beings is so because it deviates from a 'natural' path. Darwin seemed to say that all animals show some degree of human attributes, including morality. Human beings are no different than other animals in nature, other than perhaps being slightly more complex due to the evolution of our race as a whole (our society).

Today's world could be seen as everything Mill celebrated, or at least the western world with its extreme cleanliness, its advances in medical care, technology and industry. Yet in our efforts to increase technology and industry, we have had almost completely disregard for the preservation of Nature, the results of which are the loss of species, destruction of natural resources and a looming environmental collapse. One wonders what Darwin, or for that matter Mill, would say about progress and Human Nature now.