FREEDOM
FIND OUT MORE
Listen to the following podcast: Melissa Lane on Rousseau on civilization
http : //p hilo so p hyb ites. co m /2 008 /07 /m elis sa- lane- o n. htm l
Biography: Karl Marx (18181883) Marx moved around, rom
Nineteenth-century German economist, Paris to Brussels, Cologne,
historian, and philosopher Marx was one o
the most inluential thinkers o the last two and, fnally, London, oten
centuries: he invented or transormed many
o the concepts we use today (such as class trying to avoid the trouble
and alienation) and he generated enormous
amounts o controversy. He was one o the his ideas were landing
ounding athers o communism and his ideas
inspired many political igures oten with him in. He stayed in close
devastating consequences. Some say that Marxs
ideas were dangerous while others argue that touch with Engels, who oten
they were grossly misunderstood and never
applied aithully; whatever the truth may be moved around with him, p Karl Marxs grave in
there is no doubt that Marx is one o the most and they collaborated over Londons Highgate
important thinkers in modern history. several pieces o work that cemetery
would result in their amous
Marx spent his youth in Germany where he studied
law while actively educating himsel in the feld Communist Manifesto (1848) . Marx and Engels
o philosophy, his true passion. He also became
interested in radical politics and atheism rom a also took an active part in the ounding o the
young age. He moved to Paris when he was 25
and became more politically active, associating Communist League, an organization they hoped
with various radical communist and let-wing
intellectuals, including Friedrich Engels. In Paris, he would attract the working classes and trigger a
continued to study intensively, adding economics
and early socialism to his felds o interest. communist mass movement. The League made no
secret o the act that it was hoping to topple the
capitalist system in avour o a communist society,
through the means o a revolution.
Marx and Engels wrote or various newspapers around
the world, and it was Marxs only source oincome or a
long time. In the 1860s, Marx became more successul
when his political and economic work was published,
culminating in his ground-breaking Capital (volume
1, 1867). Volumes 2 and 3 were published ater his
death. He died in London in 1883, where he is buried.
M a rx
According to Marx, human beings in capitalist societies are alienated:
the economic and political system works in such a way that it enslaves
people and makes them lose all their freedom. The vast majority of people
are workers who are subjected to property-owners: they do not reap
the fruits of their labour and they are exploited. This turns people into
passive, meek prisoners who are unable to act freely and make choices.
The economic structure of society is what alienates and therefore
determines people. Human nature is set by society and human beings
will be different according to the type of society they live in. In that
sense, Marx believed in economic and social determinism.
297
6 BEING HUMAN
The capitalist society is presented as a huge, almost inescapable orce
that shapes people, in particular the working classes. Peoples actions
are determined by the capitalist society they live in and are no longer a
matter o personal choice: they are dictated by the roles individuals and
classes play to keep capitalism going. The system is such that there is
no other real alternative. According to Marx, as long as people go with
the fow and accept the role the social system has given them, they are
actively reinorcing the very system that is alienating them.
Marxs solution was to change society in order to change human beings.
Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways;
the point is to change it, he wrote.21 The change he proposed was a
radical one: a revolution, replacing capitalist societies with a communist
society in which people would be equal, and property and labour would
be shared equally. According to Marx, in a communist society, people
would work less and be ree to pursue creative and intellectual activities,
giving a new purpose to their lives. In that sense, people would be more
sel- determined and much less manipulated by society. In short, Marx
claimed that individualistic capitalist societies enslaved people, whereas
communist society would ree them and give them their humanity.
This change rom capitalism to communism, however, is a very dicult
one, because people are determined and brainwashed to the extent that
they have very little consciousness o their lack o reedom.
This is where Marxs ideas are most interesting or us: the society that
determines people is described as a complete system o subjection,
pervasive and pernicious, enslaving people rom birth and using
everything that surrounds them as propaganda. Religion itsel is seen
as a tool used to keep the working classes rom rebelling by instilling
values o meekness and promising rewards in the aterlie or those who
accept their ate on earth. Every part o society is designed to keep the
status quo and allow those who rule to continue exploiting those who
are enslaved. The system is complete and holds people in its incredibly
strong grip. Human beings become a construct, an articial product
o society, with very little reedom and independence. Typically, the
working classes have no awareness o their alienation: the all-pervasive
system o control means that they suer rom alse-consciousness,
accepting the values thrust upon them by the dominant classes without
realizing that these values are elaborate tools o mind and social control.
In addition to the socio-economic determinism described above,
Marx also believed in a sort o historical determinism. Inspired by
the German philosopher Hegel, Marx saw history as a series o cycles
where a certain thesis (idea or system) rst prevails, is then replaced
by its antithesis, and then progresses towards a synthesis o the
thesis and the antithesis, combining them until they become a new
thesis, and so on. There are times where Marx suggests that the
communist revolution he deends is inevitable, like the unavoidable
and determined next step history is bound to take. He describes this
event as the end o the cycle o history, because it puts an end to the
class system and, thereore, to the endless conficts that cause the cycle
21 Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach (Stuttgart: J. W. H. Dietz, 1888) ; available at http://www.marxists.org/archive/
marx/works/1845/theses/ (accessed 28 October 2014) .
298
FREEDOM
in the rst place. This idea o historical determinism urther reduces
the notion o human reedom: the working classes do not decide
to start a revolution. Instead, the revolution is something that will
happen and that they may as well take an active part in. Paradoxically,
however, it is only when the working classes do take an active part
that they can ree themselves. Freedom cannot be given to them by
an enlightened minority working in their avour. Although they need
the guidance o a philosopher to lit the veil o alse-consciousness, the
revolution needs to be theirs.
The enormous social, economic, and historical determining orces
Marx describes seem at times inescapable. Marx, however, did believe
in human reedom. His vision o a communist society clearly puts
some emphasis on the importance o reely chosen occupations and
work as one o the highlights o human existence. Marx also viewed
reedom as something that could be achieved as a community, not the
lonely pursuit described in liberal theories. Once people were ree rom
alienation, they would be able to interact with each other, as human
beings should, with reedom at the heart o their interaction. Given the
situation, however, Marx had to ocus on negative reedom reedom
from constraints as a prerequisite to a more positive orm o reedom
reedom to choose.
Some philosophical and practical implications
Applications of Marxism
Marx painted an idyllic picture o communist societies. In reality,
however, communist societies have not been very successul: once
competition is removed, workers tend to lack motivation and
productivity is aected, while total equality never seems to be achieved.
Indeed, some o the worst tyrants and dictators in recent history seem
to have appeared in so-called communist societies. Freedom o speech
always seems to suer and dissidents are oten treated brutally.
This does not mean that Marx was necessarily wrong on all accounts,
and his entire theory must not be discarded simply because its
applications have been less than perect (or even totally horric) .
Although Marx is oten depicted as a monster by his opponents, it is very
possible that his main mistake was simply to be overly optimistic about
human nature and its potential or change.
What i complete equality was never possible, because human beings
naturally need to compete with each other? What i human beings were
bound to become corrupt by power, whatever system they live in? C an a
change o system really change human nature itsel?
Can we free ourselves from social constraints?
Both Rousseau and Marx ask human beings to ree themselves rom
social constraints, at least partially and temporarily, in order to rebuild a
society whose infuence on individuals is a more positive one.
However, as Marx himsel points out, we are mostly unaware o the
infuence society has on us: so, how can we reject it? Societys infuence
is a powerul one, because it is constantly reinorced by our peers, our
299
6 BEING HUMAN
amily, school, the media, and almost everything around us. Values are
imposed on us until we internalize them to the extent that we become
convinced that they come rom us.
How can philosophers like Rousseau and Marx be sure that they are
exceptions, ree rom the giant ormatting machine that is society? I
reeing onesel rom societys grip is as hard as Marx describes it, how
did Marx himsel do it? How could he transcend all the infuences he
denounces, how could he see them so clearly while everyone else is
blind? The claims he makes are, to an extent, paradoxical.
With hindsight, it is clear that both Marx and Rousseau themselves
were deeply infuenced by their era and the social circles they came into
contact with. In act, rebelling against a certain social system implies that
the social system in question has infuenced the rebel, even in a negative
way. Marx would not have been Marx without capitalism: he was a
product o the very thing he was trying to ree himsel rom. While he
did not deny it, and while it might even prove his point, this inescapable
infuence is a reminder that no human being can be taken away rom the
society he lives in. There is probably no such thing as complete reedom
rom society and, as some argue, attempting to understand what human
beings would be like i they were not in society is perhaps eeble.
Blaming society
This leads us to another related problem: both Marx and Rousseau had a
tendency to blame society and a system or the corruption o human
nature, as i society and the system were entities in themselves,
working against human beings. But we must remember that society is
made o human beings, it is human beings. I human beings are good
and ree, how do they ever start building societies that are alienating and
corrupting? O course, both Marx and Rousseau oer explanations and
answers, but the questions seem to remain: doesnt it make more sense
to say that human beings corrupt society, rather than society corrupts
human beings? Since society is composed o human beings, isnt saying
society corrupts human beings the same as saying human beings
corrupt human beings? In which case, could it simply be the case that
human nature is essentially corrupt, power-thirsty, and sel- centred,
thereore making Rousseaus and Marxs dreams impossible to achieve?
Finally, human beings are social animals. Society is part o what they
are and is something they made, not an alien entity that has nothing to
do with them. In that sense, instead o wondering what human beings
would be like without society as so many social-contract theorists have
done in the past it may make more sense to see society as a useul
mirror that could help us understand human nature itsel.
Case study: gender and social conditioning
When reading about Rousseau and Marx, it is easy to think that they were
talking about a society that was very dierent rom ours and that their
arguments thereore no longer apply: in many societies, human beings are
now reer than ever, politically and socially, with much greater choice.
Yet, it can be argued that we are at least as determined as our ancestors,
i only because society has many more ways to condition us than
300
FREEDOM
it did beore. The omnipresent media, the internet, and our constant
communication with others mean that it is increasingly dicult to
isolate onesel rom the infuence o social groups. Democracy may have
gained in popularity since Rousseaus time, but you have to remember
that the system described by Rousseau, and even more so by Marx,
is much more pervasive than a simple political system. Democracy
does not prevent people rom being controlled or conditioned socially.
What social determinists and reormists describe is a social system
that infuences people through a multitude o means, such as schools,
religion, public policy, moral values, advertising, language, and so on.
There is no way to become aware o all the actors that infuence us, as
they are everywhere.
Since we are social animals belonging to a number o groups, it is normal
that we should infuence each other. For instance, it makes sense to try
to obey certain rules and avoid confict with others: as we attempt to be
civilized, we necessarily alter our behaviour. However, social infuences
also worry many thinkers, because they are not always as innocent as
simple attempts to get along. Since Marx, many philosophers and
political theorists have claimed that certain sections o the population
actively benet rom the social conditioning we are all subjected to.
The most powerul individuals o a society, or instance, usually try to
keep things as they are, as any change could threaten their power. Since
they are in power, it is easier or them to control the social system that
infuences people. Thereore, cultural and social infuences oten refect
the tastes and needs o the most powerul instead o representing the
whole population.
One example that can show the extent to which social infuences
shape our identity and values is the example o gender. It is
particularly interesting because it aects us all, and has been relevant
throughout recent human history, in all cultures. It is also interesting
because, or a long time, philosophers and scientists assumed that
gender dierences were entirely natural and had nothing to do with
the infuence o society.
Philosophical terms and theories
Feminism is an umbrella term that is oten to men: this is not the case! Anyone (male or
misunderstood and caricatured. There are emale) who believes that men and women
many branches and types o eminism, rom should be equal can technically claim to be a
Marxist eminism to liberal eminism, rom eminist, especially i they think that women
radical eminism to essentialist eminism. have suered rom discrimination.
Feminists oten argue, debate, and disagree.
However, they all have one thing in common: The notion o gender is central to eminist
they all believe that women have, historically, theories o the 2 0th century. In response to
been treated unairly and they try to rectiy widespread traditional ideas about womens
the situation by seeking equality between the nature and the natural role o women, most
sexes. What they mean exactly by equality and eminists claim that the biological dierences
the way to achieve it varies, though, hence between men and women (sex) are insignicant
the debates! A common mistake is to think compared with the dierences that are caused by
that eminism claims that women are superior social conditioning (gender) .
301
6 BEING HUMAN
This is what de Beauvoir means when she writes: Feminists believe that women are
One is not born, but rather becomes, woman.22 disadvantaged by the social system. They call
Most eminine characteristics are socially such a system patriarchy. It does not reer
constructed and not at all derived rom biology. to the power o athers (origins o the word)
but to the power o men in general. Although
According to eminists, genders are socially this concept can seem a little dated, it shaped
constructed and this is what distinguishes contemporary eminist theory and is still used
gender rom sex: whereas a persons sex is a today, notably when eminists talk about a
natural and biological act, his or her gender is patriarchal society (a non-eminist society
articial and a social construct. For instance, where the sexes are unequal) .
to have a beard or be able to bear children is
part o ones sex, whereas to wear skirts or According to radical feminists, patriarchy is an
enj oy car racing is part o ones gender. S ome extremely complex and elaborate system o
characteristics, such as mood swings (or oppression. It is spread in all realms o society,
women) and aggressive behaviour (or men) , are rom the most ormal (like politics) to the most
dicult to put in either category as they could intimate (at home, in relationships, etc.) . In many
belong to both. Here, we will ocus on gender as ways, this type o social conditioning is similar
a social construct in order to explore a specic to the system denounced by Marx, and many
type o social determinism. eminists were infuenced by Marxist ideas.
The subtle but constant social conditioning that constructs gender starts
very early on, when a child is born and the rst thing he or she hears is
Its a boy! or Its a girl! , making his or her sex the most important o
all characteristics, dening the childs identity even beore it has been
named or has had a chance to meet his or her parents.
In 1 969, Kate Millett, an American radical eminist, wrote one o the
seminal texts o eminist theory, outlining the all-encompassing nature
o the social construction o gender. Here is an extract:
a disinterested examination o our system However muted its present appearance may be,
o sexual relationship must point out that sexual dominion obtains nevertheless as perhaps
the situation between the sexes now, and the most pervasive ideology o our culture and
throughout history, is a relationship o provides its most undamental concept o power.
dominance and subordinance. What goes largely
unexamined, oten even unacknowledged This is so because our society, like all other
(yet it is institutionalized nonetheless) in our historical civilizations, is a patriarchy. The act is
social order, is the birthright priority whereby evident at once i one recalls that the military,
males rule emales. Through this system a most industry, technology, university, science, political
ingenious orm o internal colonization has oce and nance in short, every avenue o
been achieved. It is one which tends moreover power within the society, including the coercive
to be sturdier than any orm o segregation, orce o the police, is entirely in male hands. As
and more rigorous than class stratication, the essence o politics is power, such realization
more uniorm, and certainly more enduring. cannot ail to carry impact.
Kate Millett23
22 Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, translated by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier,
introduced by Judith Thurman (New York: Vintage, 2009) , pp. xv, xviii.
23 Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2000) , p. 25.
302
FREEDOM
Millett carries on to say that biology cannot possibly be the origin o such
disparity in power between men and women, and that society itsel must
be to blame:
There is insufcient evidence or the thesis that the present social
distinctions o patriarchy are physical in origin, since distinctions
which we know to be culturally induced at present so outweigh
them. Whatever the real dierences between the sexes may be, we
are not likely to know them until the sexes are treated dierently,
that is alike. And this is very ar rom being the case at present.24
Millett continues with an exploration o the social institutions that shape
gender. According to her, the ollowing institutions and actors act as
conditioning agents, perpetuating and reinorcing gender roles in society
to maintain the status quo:
The amily, with the ather as a central power fgure
Religion, also ocused on male power
The State and laws that avour men
The economic dependency o women
The education system, pushing women into certain proessions
Today, many women, including eminists, would say that Milletts
vision is out o date. Women, partly thanks to eminism itsel, have
made enormous progress in the last 40 years. The education system,
or instance, oten avours girls and can no longer be seen as one o the
instruments o a patriarchal society.
p Very few women appear among the most powerful political leaders in the world
24 Ibid., p. 29.
303
6 BEING HUMAN
And yet, there are still many countries where society is clearly male-
dominated and where women lack the opportunities that men enj oy.
Even in the most developed countries, institutions such as the
military, industry, technology, university, science, political oce and
nance may not be entirely in male hands, but women are certainly
grossly underrepresented in their midst.
Although radical eminism is not as ashionable as it was in the 1 970s,
some o the questions it raised still resonate today: can biology alone
really cause such a social imbalance between men and women? Is
society still a powerul infuence on the development o our gender
identity? What social institutions and actors contribute to the
construction o gender?
Thanks to eminists, such questions became much more mainstream and
awareness continues to be raised on the social infuences that articially
separate men and women.
In 2 001 , or instance, the B B C Programme Child of Our Time conducted
an experiment, asking adults to take care o babies dressed either in a
pink or in a blue outt. The experiment revealed that the adults who
thought they were taking care o a girl acted completely dierently
rom the ones who believed they were taking care o a boy. The boys
were handled more rmly and played with, while the girls were
treated like ragile babies and complimented on their looks. I baby
girls and boys are treated dierently rom birth, it becomes extremely
dicult to know whether they are indeed dierent to start with, or
they become dierent because o social actors. Dierent treatments
could have a proound eect on the kind o people girls and boys grow
up to be.
ACTIVITY
Another social actor that can deeply infuence the development o
gender identity is the kind o games and toys that children are given.
On the internet, visit a popular toy or git website and run a search
or girls toys and then boys toys.
What dierences do you notice?
What social roles could these toys reinorce and encourage?
D o you think children are naturally drawn towards toys that are
targeted or their gender, or do you think society teaches them
what toys and roles are adequate or their gender?
What do you think happens when children reuse to conorm with
societys expectations? Consider dierent examples, or instance in
dierent cultures and countries.
Far rom going away, the social construction o genders has remained p Who decides which is a girls
a relevant topic in recent years. In 2 008, Child of Our Time explored the toy and which is a boys toy?
social construction o gender once again. Here is an extract rom an
article written by the programmes producer, Tessa Livingstone:
304
FREEDOM
When I was very young, I thought I knew how Advertisements, music, magazines, and many TV
men and women should behave: men were stations live o a diet o sex, celebrity, money, and
breadwinners and women housewives. But beauty. Young children are more impressionable
already the world was changing. than their elders. They are trusting, and highly
attuned to social nuances because they need to
Now, 70 per cent o women with children eel accepted. It is not surprising that they soak up
have paid work, and men are taking more messages crated to seduce the population or the
responsibility or housework. A survey we carried benet o the market
out or the Child o Our Time series showed most
o our parents believe traditional gender roles are Other studies show boys are the more
now almost irrelevant. materialistic sex, a nding corroborated when
we asked the Child o Our Time children about
At the same time, we talked with their children the qualities they most admired. While girls
and discovered something disturbing. The wanted to be kind and healthy, the boys chose
children were busy constructing new gender roles, wealth, telling us: Money is more important
infuenced less by tradition, parents and school than anything, and Id like to be rich and buy
than by the outside world. So, are we really what I want.
bridging the divide o the sexes? Or, in a culture
dominated by marketing, media, and materialism, One might think the desire to be rich would
are our kids giving a dierent message? spur boys to get educated, but it doesnt appear
to. Some o the able boys in our cohort told us:
The power o marketing on gender identity is Clever is so boring. They elt cleverness was
illustrated by an experiment we carried out with not cool; infuenced, perhaps, by a celebrity
the Child o Our Time children, now seven years culture that underestimates the hard grat
old we are tracking 25 millennium children needed to get there.
rom birth to adulthood. We lled bottles with
the same lemonade. One set we packaged as That may go some way to help explain why
Rocket Pop with blue labels, and the other as boys are alling even urther behind girls in
Princess Pop with pink ones. school. Again, children split along gender lines,
or our seven-year-old girls told us: I you are
First, we asked the children which they liked the clever, everybody likes you more, and C lever
look o and no surprise the girls preerred the means that you know what to do quite a lot
pink and the boys, blue. We then asked them to o the time. Girls seem to expect to do well in
compare the taste o the drinks. The boys told us education, and oten do so.
that Rocket Pop has more zz, and Its better
because its more fat. Or, as one budding scientist Even so, girls sel-esteem is also under threat.
put it: Its got more favour because its got the The NCC [National Consumer Council] study
least amount o water. Then, the girls: The blue demonstrated how the media can magniy
one is a bit more dark and I dont like it. materialism to the point where it can substantially
damage childrens sel-esteem by making them eel
We realised almost all our children believed the inadequate. Girls respond by becoming increasingly
two identical drinks had dierent tastes, and they perectionist about their school work and their
preerred the taste o the one aimed at them. The weight. Oliver James, the studys author, told me
act that the colours and design o the packaging that the rates o depression and anxiety among
aect their judgement attests to the power o girls rom high-income amilies had increased rom
marketing, both to deceive and drive a protable 24 to 38 per cent in just 1 2 years. It is a high price
wedge between the sexes. to pay or having it all.
This is where the media comes in. Childrens Tessa Livingstone25
television is generally benign, but children are
bombarded with much more.
25 Tessa Livingstone, The New Gender Divide, TES Newspaper, 9 May 2008 (updated 4 August 2008) ; available
at http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2619363 (accessed 28 October 2014) .
305
6 BEING HUMAN
The construction o gender is just one example o the way society Questions
can shape our identity and infuence our values and choices. Such an
infuence is oten subtle, yet all-encompassing at the same time, raising 1. List the social actors
serious philosophical questions about the amount o reedom that that, according to Tessa
individuals really possess. Theoreticians such as Rousseau, Marx, and Livingstone, inuence
eminist scholars believe that consciousness-raising is a rst step towards todays children.
greater reedom, because being aware o the infuences that shape us can
help us detach ourselves rom those infuences. 2. To what extent do you
think such actors are
For example, gender characteristics that we assumed were natural and determining childrens
inescapable can become more o a lie choice once we perceive them as values and behaviour?
a social construct. I we know that society, and not nature, has dictated a
certain way o lie, we are more likely to seek alternatives and ace a real 3. Can you fnd personal
choice.That is why, ultimately, reedom may depend on our awareness examples that either
and understanding o the sociocultural infuences that aect us. reect or contradict
what Livingstone writes
FIND OUT MORE in this article?
Listen to the ollowing podcast: Janet Radclie Richards on men and 4. How do you think
womens natures contemporary
http : // p hilo s o p hyb ites . co m /2 0 0 8/ 0 4/ j anet- rad cliffe. htm l examples relate to
Rousseaus and Marxs
Getting back to nature versus nurture, and moving theories?
beyond it
Now that you have studied both biological and social determinism in
detail, you can get a much better understanding o the nature versus
nurture debate.
Lets get back to one o our case studies, criminal behaviour, in order to
examine the implications o the traditional debate, and ways to get past it.
Nature Nurture
Some possible biological causes ofcriminal behaviour Some possible social causes ofcriminal behaviour26
Low serotonin leading to impulsive behaviour and Family: parental criminality, abuse
lack o sel-control
Education: low school attendance, low-paying
Low activity and/or damage in the prerontal employment
cortex, leading to poor planning abilities and lack
o control over ones impulses Economic actors: poverty, social inequality,
unemployment
Low activity variant o the MAOA warrior gene
leading to aggressive behaviour Environment: criminality is common in the
neighbourhood /among riends and role models
Hormonal imbalance, or instance involving
testosterones or adrenaline Substance use: alcohol and drugs
Biological tendency to become addicted easily
26 Based on data rom the Ministry o Justice, Social Risk Factors or Involvement in Crime, in New Zealand
Criminal Justice Sector Outcomes Report: Strategic Policy Brief(New Zealand: Ministry o Justice, 2009) ;
available at http://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector/drivers-o-crime/documents/spb-social-risk-actors
(accessed 28 October 2014).
306
FREEDOM
In the context o a traditional nature versus nurture debate, thinkers and
scholars would tend to lean on one side o the table, claiming that either
nature or nurture plays a more important role in infuencing human
b e h a v io u r.
FIND OUT MORE
On social causes o criminal behaviour:
http ://www.j ustice.govt.nz/j ustice-sector/drivers-of-crime/
d o c u m e nts / s p b - s o c ial- ris k - fac to r s
On the combination o biological and social causes o criminal behaviour:
http ://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Articles/crimecause.htm
The position one adopts has philosophical and practical implications.
As we saw in the example o biological determinism and criminal
behaviour, or instance, claiming that some people are natural
criminals means that they may need to be treated with clemency
in court. Philosophically, accepting that biology can make people
misbehave is accepting that human reedom and responsibility are
limited, at least or some individuals. As we saw, those limits are
problematic, because i we accept their existence or some, there is a
chance that they could be extended to all human beings: non-criminal
people might just be biologically determined to obey societys rules and
obedience might not be a mark o their reedom ater all.
S imilarly, the nurture argument has important implications. O ne has
to decide, or instance, whether society as a whole needs reorming
or whether the particular situation o certain people has to improve
without the need or radical social change. As mentioned earlier, social
determinism oers some hope with the possibility o change: actors
such as a bad education, poverty, or access to drugs can be tackled, even
i they are complex issues. Genes and brains are dicult to modiy,
whereas social actors can be altered, using social policy, reorms, laws,
charities, and so on. As we highlighted beore, society is built by human
beings and, as a human construct, it can always be deconstructed and
improved to have a positive impact on individuals. This is something we
see and do all the time. Social solutions do not necessarily need to be
as radical as the ones proposed by Marx: simple steps like better health
care or tighter rules on school attendance can have a real eect on
individuals and their behaviour.
As such, in the traditional nature versus nurture debate, the nature
position, claiming that some individuals are naturally born with strong
dispositions, tends to be a little more pessimistic, as well as conservative.
This is a broad generalization but it can help understand the debate
better. Advocates o the nature argument oten claim that little
can be done to help or reorm individuals who are born with certain
negative traits. They must be dealt with accordingly and there is perhaps
no point in spending too much time trying to change them. On the
other hand, advocates o the nurture camp tend to think that such
individuals are the victims o their environment and circumstances.
Once that environment is improved or transormed, individuals are
307
6 BEING HUMAN
likely to change. It is thereore worth trying to reorm people, but also
society as a whole. Again, this doesnt need to mean that a complete
transormation is needed: sometimes, social policy or simply better
economic conditions are all that is needed to improve the situation and
its impact on individuals.
Here, we used criminal behaviour to illustrate the nature versus
nurture debate, but it has been present in many other areas. For
instance, thinkers have oten wondered whether dierences between
men and women are the result o natural actors or social ones.
Likewise, researchers have been ascinated with the natural and
social causes o traits such as intelligence, musical talent, or sporting
abilities. In act, it is sae to say that the nature versus nurture debate
has been present in one orm or another in all areas o studies related
to human beings.
Beyond nature versus nurture:
an integrated approach
However, it is important to recognize that things have moved on,
and that the nature versus nurture debate is increasingly obsolete. In
many areas, researchers and philosophers have been using a more
integrated approach, using arguments rom both sides o the debate and
recognizing that behaviour is a product o a combination o natural and
social elements.
We now know, or instance, that biological actors such as hormones
or even genes can give us a predisposition or tendency towards certain
behaviours, but that those behaviours oten need to be triggered by
environmental actors. For example, imagine two people: Pedro, who
was born with a natural tendency to become addicted to drugs easily,
and Patricia, who was born with no addictive tendencies and should be
able to resist addiction or a longer time beore it takes a hold o her.
Now, those tendencies, in themselves, mean very little, unless they are
combined with the right environmental actors. I Pedro was born
into a loving, protective amily, i he attends a school where drugs are
unpopular, and lives in a neighbourhood where drugs are not available,
then his natural addictive tendencies will have very little chance to
become a reality. O n the other hand, i Patricias parents are abusive,
all her best riends are drug addicts, and drugs are easy to obtain in her
neighbourhood, her natural resistance to addiction is unlikely to be
enough in the long term.
Biological determinism is not usually strong enough to be a real
predictor, unless it is combined with social determinism. E ven the
researchers who dedicate their lives to understanding the biological
actors that infuence behaviour now recognize that those actors cannot
be isolated rom social actors. Here are a ew examples taken rom our
biological determinism section:
Markku Linnoila, who discovered the link between low levels o
serotonin and impulsive behaviour in prisoners, also claimed that
the biological actors he described needed to be combined with an
environmental or social stressor, such as alcohol abuse or a violent
308
FREEDOM
amily environment, in order to result in impulsive behaviour. Low
serotonin alone is unlikely to result in impulsive criminal behaviour.
D ee Higley, who also established a link between low serotonin
and dare-devil behaviour in monkeys, later discovered that
environmental actors such as the loss o a mother could lower the
serotonin levels o young monkeys. Here, the environment triggered
the biological actor that led to a certain behaviour.
Rose McDermott, who ound that people carrying the low-
activity variant o the MAOA warrior gene were more likely to
be aggressive, also ound that they were no more aggressive than
other people i the provocation was mild. In other words, carriers
o the more risky gene needed to be placed in a more stressul
environment beore their genetic make-up really started to make
a dierence.
The examples above illustrate the obsolescence o the nature versus
nurture debate: it is now clear that nature and nurture are so intricately
linked that it is almost impossible to distinguish them rom one another.
Two relatively recent discoveries have urther reinorced the need or an
integrated approach:
Brain plasticity: in the last ew decades, it has become clear
that the brain is not as static as previously thought. The brain is
plastic, or malleable, and its structure will change depending on the
environment we are in and the activities we engage in. Although
children and young peoples brains are particularly plastic and
changeable, adult brains continue to change too. Any natural
abilities we may be born with will disappear i unused, and any weak
areas will be improved and perhaps even erased by constant practice.
In other words, when it comes to the brain, nurture can reshape what
nature produced.
Epigenetics is a new feld o studies that explores the way genes are
switched on and o by environmental actors. Genes used to be seen
as one o the most constant, inescapable, and determining actors o
our biological make-up, but even they respond to the situation and
environment!
FIND OUT MORE
Research brain plasticity or epigenetics to fnd out more about the
way biological, environmental, and social actors combine to make
us who we are. The ollowing pages are a good starting point:
Brain plasticity:
http ://www.ted.com/talks/michael_merzenich_on_the_
elastic_brain.html
http ://www.p ositscience.com/brain-resources/brain-
p las ticity/w hat- is - b rain- p las ticity
Ep igen etics :
http ://www.p bs.org/wgbh/nova/body/ep igenetics.html
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/
309
6 BEING HUMAN
Another contemporary example of the nature and nurture
combination:
How technology wires the learning brain (brain plasticity) :
http : / / b lo g s . kqed . o rg / m in d s hift/ 2 0 1 1 / 0 2 / ho w - te c hno lo g y-
wires-the-learning-brain/
Some philosophical implications of the nature and Assessment tip
nurture combination
Although many of the
To come back to our drug addiction example, it is worth wondering what philosophers we are
would happen to Pedro (with his genetic propensity or addiction) i he studying were alive several
were born in Patricias social circumstances (in an abusive amily and centuries ago, it is always
drug-ridden environment) . The blend o biological and social actors a good idea for you to
would not just mean that the risks add up, it would mean that they relate their theories to
multiply each other and become a potent combination that would truly contemporary examples,
reduce and threaten Pedros ree will. Can anyone really escape those including ones you are
determining actors when they are combined? personally familiar with.
This will make your essays
Do you remember Raines speech and his reerence to a murderer relevant to todays world
who checked all the boxes and had all the social decits, the amily and will show that you can
decits, the brain decits that made him a walking time-bomb apply philosophy to non-
waiting to explode? Raine, a airly optimistic scientist and not a hard philosophical material. In
determinist as such, still ended up asking: Is it any surprise he goes and addition, such examples
kills and rapes somebody? will make it easier for you to
give a personal response.
Our newound knowledge o the nature and nurture combination
sometimes seems to push reedom into a corner or squeeze it out o the
equation altogether.
When someone is infuenced by a multitude o actors that pushes them
in one direction, it is hard to deny that they are losing some reedom, up
to the point where resisting all the infuences may become impossible
and eliminate the possibility o ree will.
This brings us back to a question raised earlier in this chapter: are we
all determined to the same extent? Philosophically, both hard and
sot determinisms can still be maintained in the context o the nature
and nurture combination. Sot determinists, on the one hand, can say
that most individuals are not determined to the extreme extent o the
examples cited above: most people retain an element o choice despite
infuences. Hard determinists, on the other hand, can claim that we are
all determined to the same extent. The person who does not commit
crimes was determined not to, and the one who decides against
taking drugs was simply wired in a way that would have made her
decision predictable i we knew all the parameters. It is very dicult
to convince a hard determinist that reedom exists: they can claim, or
instance, that some people are just determined to believe in reedom
and eel ree!
The nature and nurture combination, however, doesnt need to be seen
in a pessimistic or hard determinist light. As we learn more about the
multitude o infuences that help shape our thoughts and decisions,
310
FREEDOM
human reedom can resurace. Although there are rare examples o
people who combine all the biological, environmental, and social elements
that push them in one direction, most people are pushed in dierent
directions all at once. They may, or instance, grow up in a drug-ridden
neighbourhood but in a amily that is supportive. Or they may have some
genes that make them easily addicted, and others that make them strong-
willed enough to resist temptation or even stop taking drugs altogether.
Those contradictory infuences oer a variety o possible paths. While hard
determinists claim that those possibilities are just an illusion, many other
thinkers believe that therein lies ree will: at some point, one just has to
stop at the crossroad between paths, and make a choice.
Unortunately, there is no way to know whether this choice is illusory
or real. The answer, at this point in the history o human knowledge,
is more a matter o philosophical opinion than scientic calculation,
since actors and their interaction are probably too complex to allow
or reliable predictions. Free-will advocates would maintain that there
are individuals who still do, against all odds, behave in a way that was
utterly unpredictable. Hard determinists, on the other hand, would
argue that such individuals must have been determined to resist their
natural tendencies and the social pressures that surround them. As long
as we are unable to measure and compile all the infuences that aect
human behaviour, there will be room or both ree-will advocates and
various shades o determinists.
Other types of determinism
S o ar in this chapter, we have ocused on two main types o
determinism and their relationship with each other. D eterminism,
however, comes in many orms and the nature o the core theme
assessment means that you should eel ree to explore another orm o
determinism instead o the ones detailed here. Examples o topics you
could study and use in an assessment include:
Psychological determinism: although we may eel like we are
making conscious decisions or rational, traceable reasons, many
psychologists since Freud claim that we have a subconscious mind
that infuences our choices without our being aware o it. In
that sense, we may well be determining ourselves! Psychological
determinism also claims that there are laws o the human mind and
that, given those laws, behaviour could be predictable. Psychological
determinism can also include behavioural determinism, according
to which peoples behaviour is always a response to conditioning o
some sort.
Environmental determinism ocuses on the impact geographical
and climatic conditions have on human beings. Despite its name, it
is more closely linked to biological determinism than it is to social
determinism. It relies heavily on the theory o evolution, claiming
that the terrain and weather conditions populations have evolved in
have a great impact on their behaviour. Unortunately, environmental
determinism sometimes slips into racist and discriminatory ideology,
making sweeping generalizations about certain populations and their
characteristics.
311
6 BEING HUMAN
Causal determinism is the kind o determinism we mentioned at the
beginning o this chapter. It is the belie that every event has a cause
and that human behaviour does not escape or transcend that rule.
Events, including human events, are the direct result o a chain o
causes. This is sometimes reerred to as philosophical determinism,
although it is also closely linked to scientifc determinism, the belie
that the whole universe, including human beings and the human
mind, ollows laws o nature that make everything, at least in theory,
predictable. Other chapters should allow you to explore this in some
detail. For instance, agency, sel- consciousness, materialism, and
unctionalism are all topics that are strongly related to determinism
and that you could use in an essay on this philosophical theme.
As long as you fnd one clear central theme and two philosophical
approaches to that theme, any combination is permitted.
THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM o their actions in this lie. Despite these belies,
however, most monotheistic believers give ree
Western religion and determinism will a central place, simply because morality
and goodness cannot exist without it: i we are
Most major religions deal with the topics o just Gods puppets, we cannot ever be good or
reedom and determinism, in one way or bad, because our actions are not our own. A
another. In Judaism, C hristianity, and Islam, truly good person is a person who had a choice
or instance, human beings possess ree will, between doing the right thing and the wrong
which allows them to take responsibility or their thing, and who deliberately and reely chose the
actions. God is omniscient and, as such, knows right thing, or the right reasons, despite all the
what path each human being will take, but he temptation that they might have experienced.
is not the one who makes them take the path This view can even, to an extent, explain the
in question: human beings make ree choices existence o evil and suering in the world.
and are responsible or the consequences o
their actions. In certain branches o these major FIND OUT MORE
religions, there are more deterministic belies:
some believe that God has a plan or each one http ://www.kiekeben.com/theological.
o us and that we must ollow that plan by html
ollowing his signs, while others think that God
already knows who is going to Heaven, regardless
AN EASTERN PERSPECTIVE in both religions. Buddhists believe in rebirth
rather than reincarnation; or Buddhists, the
Karma, reincarnation, and determinism soul gives lie to another soul, like a candle can
light another, whereas Hindus believe that the
Karma is a notion that exists primarily in Eastern same soul will pass rom one body to the next.
religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. It is However, in both Hinduism and B uddhism, past
very dierent rom the belies held by the main lives do have an eect on our present lie. Good
monotheistic Western religions discussed above, and bad actions are stored up as good and bad
and yet it has certain aspects in common with Karma, and Karma will have a direct eect on the
them: Karma also emphasizes responsibility, ree next lie. To simpliy, good actions might result in
will, rewards, and punishment. luck and good ortune, while bad actions will be
punished by ill ate and difculties in the next lie.
To understand Karma, you must understand
reincarnation: both Hindus and Buddhists believe Karma can seem like a deterministic, even
that, when a person dies, they can be reborn atalistic notion: our current situation is a direct
as another person. The idea is slightly dierent
312
FREEDOM
consequence o our past lie and we must accept Karma means that we are dealt certain cards, but
it. We are receiving rewards and punishments the way we play them is still up to us.
or actions we no longer remember, and both
Hinduism and Buddhism ask us to consider More importantly, our present choices will
those as air and justly deserved. Rebellion is have a great impact on our uture lie: we are
utile: ate is sealed by our past actions. The determining ourselves and, in that sense, we have
amily we are born into, the wealth we are born an important responsibility towards ourselves. We
into, the social status we inherit, are all a direct are ree and responsible in a way that is perhaps
consequence o Karma. Our actions, too, are more proound than in any other tradition:
infuenced by Karma: we might make the same we know that every action will be punished or
mistakes again and again, or react against a rewarded, and will have direct consequences on
past situation. our uture, even i it is in another lie. Isnt this
level o control, even i we have to wait or the
However, it would be a mistake to think that next lie, the essence o reedom itsel?
Hinduism and Buddhism leave us as passive
and powerless beings, unable to change our FIND OUT MORE
ate. Although it is true that certain aspects o
our lives, like health or social status (notably http ://www.religionfacts.com/
in Hinduism) , cannot be changed and must be hinduism/beliefs/karma.htm
accepted, ree will is still at the centre o the http ://www.buddhanet.net/3 -gqga.htm
notion o Karma. We are ree to choose how http://buddhism.about.com/od/
we live our lie and how we react to the lie we karmaandrebirth/a/karma.htm
are given. To use the metaphor o a card game,
An integrated approach
Although these types o determinism are sometimes presented as
conficting with one another, as in the nature versus nurture debate,
there is really no reason to think that they are not compatible. The
likely truth is that they interact with each other, sometimes reinorcing
each other, sometimes counteracting each other. It makes a lot o sense
to take an integrated approach combining all those actors rather than
one that articially sets them as incompatible: that is what modern
psychologists, or instance, do when they try to understand peoples
behaviour. For the purpose o your exam, however, you might want
to present two types o determinism as two dierent approaches, as
requested in the core theme exam instructions.
What about freedom?
The more discoveries we make about genetics, psychology, and
the role o society, the more reasons we have to think that we are
determined: there are so many infuences in our lives, many o which
we are unaware o, that reedom seems to be increasingly unlikely.
With each new discovery, determinism seems to score an extra point
and reedom is squeezed out a little urther, and it is hard to maintain
that we can be ree rom any infuence. However, it does not mean
that we do not have any ree will at all. In many ways, the idea that
we are totally determined can seem just as absurd as the idea that we
are totally ree.
313
6 BEING HUMAN
Lets start with a ew problems raised by hard determinism:
We feel free! It might be an obvious statement, and perhaps not one
based on scientic proo or even perect logic, but instincts can also
matter in philosophy. When a theory is completely counter-intuitive,
it is very dicult to give it ull credit. And the idea that our whole
lie every single one o our actions and decisions is determined, is
extremely counter-intuitive. Why would people eel ree i reedom
did not exist at all? Why would people agonize over dicult decisions
i they were not really making those decisions?
Many determinists try to oer explanations, arguing that reedom is
an illusion, but none o those seems completely convincing. Whatever
their argument is, however rational and logical it may seem, it just
does not eel true.
Now, o course, there are counter- criticisms: a eeling or an instinct
cannot really be proo o anything, even i it is shared by most human
beings. This can generate a very interesting conversation about the
value o intuition in philosophy!
Another way to look at it is to say: if we feel free, who cares if we
really are not? There might be infuences shaping our decisions, but
those infuences are so complex and there are so many o them that
we cannot possibly predict what the decisions will be. And what is
determinism without prediction? Determinism should mean that actions
are predictable, and i it is unable to predict them, it alls fat. In act, it
seems that, most o the time, behaviour is explained after it has occurred
rather than predicted accurately. This leads to another ascinating
question: i determinism relies on the predictability o behaviour, could
it be that ree will is simply the inability to predict behaviour? In other
words, since we feel ree, and we are unable to make the calculations
that can prove us wrong, could reedom just be our deault hypothesis
until we can show that it is indeed a complete illusion?
O course, as we have seen, there are predispositions and tendencies
that can be identied, but those are no guarantee that certain
behaviours will ollow. Until we are able to predict behaviour with
certainty, we will not be able to rule out reedom. It is entirely possible
to think that human beings are subjected to a multitude o infuences
that shaped their decisions and actions, but that they still have the
ability to contemplate a variety o options and exercise a certain
amount o ree will. Even i this amount is small, it is still there and
invalidates hard determinism.
Finally, there is also a pragmatic consideration that must enter into the
equation: since we dont know whether ree will really exists, it is almost
reduced to a belie. However, practically speaking, arent we all better o
carrying on with this belie? What would happen without ree will?
One o the most dramatic changes would be the absence o
responsibility and the death o morality. I people are not ree to act as
they wish, they cannot possibly take responsibility or their actions and
they cannot be good or bad. They cannot be punished or rewarded.
This means giving up on a major aspect o what it means to be human.
314
FREEDOM
O course, determinism has taught us to be more lenient and to TOK link
look at what infuences people beore we condemn them: are they
mentally ill? Do they have learning diculties? Do they suer rom a Think about the conclusion
chemical imbalance or perhaps an addiction? Were they brought up above: reason and sense
in terrible circumstances? Are they surrounded by criminals? Were experience are unable to tell
they ever taught anything about morality? Did they act out us with certainty whether
o character? we are free or not. Yet most
peoples intuition tells them
Those infuences mean that we do not see all human beings as equally that they are free, because
responsible. However, taking peoples situation into account is very they feel like they are
dierent rom denying the act that they made a decision at all: only making decisions all the
severely ill people are seen as unable to make decisions. Do we really time, and not following a
want all human beings to be seen like puppets, unable to control predictable path.
themselves and help themselves?
Can intuition be enough
That is a danger o extreme orms o determinism. Since we do not to be the foundation of
know whether ree will truly exists, the wisest thing to do or now is our knowledge of human
probably to pretend that it does until we have proo to the contrary. freedom?
ACTIVITY: A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Imagine that scientists manage to prove that reedom does not exist
and that all human behaviour is predictable.
1. What would be the philosophical and practical implications?
2. What would human beings think o themselves?
3. What would become easier? What would become harder?
At the end o your thought experiment, decide i humanity is better
o believing in reedom (whether it is actually an illusion or not) .
FIND OUT MORE
A great way into this activity is to listen to the ollowing podcast
(Daniel Dennett talks about whether ree will is worth wanting) :
http : / / p hilo s o p hyb ite s . co m / 2 0 1 2 / 0 8 / d anie l- d e nne tt- o n- fre e -
will- wo rth- wanting.htm l? cid= 6a00d83 45 1 6cc76 9e2 01 7c3 1 60
8a3 b970b# com ment-6a00d83 45 1 6cc769e2 01 7c3 1 608a3 b970b
FINAL REFLECTION
Given what we know today ( scientic knowledge, psychology, social
philosophy, etc.) do you think it is still possible to believe that human
beings are condemned to be ree? Can absolute reedom exist?
315
6 BEING HUMAN
Link with the core theme: freedom and being human
Our understanding o reedom and whether we believe in it at
all deeply aects what it means to be human. The existentialist
viewpoint, or instance, oers a view o human beings as entirely
ree to dene themselves and ultimately responsible or whom they
become. B eing human is being ree, and human beings embody
reedom in a way that no other creature can match. Biological
determinism, on the other hand, places human beings rmly in
nature and amongst other animals. Human beings do not transcend
their own biology and their reedom can only exist within the
connes o genetic, chemical and evolutionary infuences. Social
determinism, nally, ocuses on human beings as social animals that
can only be understood in the context o the groups they belong
to. These views do not need to be mutually exclusive, and being
human may well mean a complex mixture o reedom, natural
behaviours, social infuences and other actors. What is important is
to understand that every time we redene reedom or ocus on ways
in which it is limited, we also redene what it means to be human:
the ull philosophical and ethical implications o each theory must
be considered.
Assessment
Below are two stimuli taken rom past papers, that can be related to the
key concept o reedom:
Stimulus 5
Source: Calvin and Hobbes (1998) Watterson. Reprinted with permission of Universal Press Syndicate.
All rights reserved.
Stimulus 6
Human reedom consists in this: that we do not yet know what we shall be, not because the
knowledge is too dicult to acquire, not because there are no certainties but only very great
improbabilities, but because we are not yet nished. We are begun; what we have already become
and are now becoming plays a part in what we shall become.
L. Susan Stebbing27
316
FREEDOM
Activities
1. Write the frst ew sentences o an introduction or each o the three
stimuli, in which you reer to the stimulus directly and identiy
the specifc philosophical issue that your essay will be ocusing on.
Make sure the philosophical issue is directly relevant to both the
stimulus and the core theme: being human.
2. There are dierent traditions in the academic world when it comes
to introductions and whether they should include a thesis (similar
to what you may call a knowledge claim in TOK) or not. A thesis is
a statement that usually comes at the end o the introduction and
expresses the view the writer intends to deend, or the perspective
the writer will argue rom.
Assessment tip: Picking a philosophical issue related to freedom
Freedom is a key concept that we have explored interpretations or points o view, you need to make
in depth in this chapter. In addition, you may have sure you are amiliar with at least two perspectives
read some material on your own, and your teacher on the philosophical issue you are choosing. In act,
no doubt gave you extra material and ideas too. the issue itsel could include a tension between
This means that you probably know way too much points o view, so that you make it very clear that
about reedom to t it all into an essay written in your essay will be a discussion. For example, you
under an hour! could simply ask: To what extent are human beings
determined by their biology?; or you could include a
This is why you need to choose a specic second perspective in your question: Are biological
philosophical issue. Although it is a good idea to write and social determinism equally compelling?, or
clearly that your issue is related to the broader key something even more contrasted, like Is a belie
concept o reedom, reedom itsel is not a good in radical reedom still possible today, despite
philosophical issue, because it is too broad. Equally, scientic discoveries about the biological actors
reedom and determinism is also too broad, and too that inuence human behaviour?
vague, to be a good philosophical issue.
Finally, another good idea is to spell things out as
When you talk about reedom and/or determinism, clearly as possible in those rst ew sentences.
it is always a good idea to speciy what you intend Remember that your teacher, and even more so your
to ocus on exactly. For instance, instead o writing examiner, will have many papers to mark and will not
an essay on whether human beings are ree, want to hunt or clues! Instead, write in a direct and
you are better o narrowing it down to whether efcient manner. It is perectly acceptable to say:
biological determinism eliminates the possibility The stimulus depicts [ ] , which relates to the key
o human reedom. This is a precise philosophical concept o reedom in general, and to the ollowing
issue that relates to both the Core theme and the philosophical issue in particular: [ ] O course,
key concept o reedom in a clear manner. It would you will also need to justiy the link you are making
also, o course, need to relate to the stimulus itsel. between the stimulus, the Core theme idea o being
human, and the specic philosophical issue you
Since a good response would need to include have chosen to tackle.
a discussion and assessment o alternative
27 L. Susan Stebbing, Philosophy and the Physicists (London: Methuen, 1937) , p. 249.
317
6 BEING HUMAN
Thesis in the introduction No thesis in the introduction
The introduction ends with a thesis: a statement The introduction explains the ocus o the essay
that clearly tells the reader what position you and presents the alternative points o view that
are going to deend or argue rom in the essay. will be explored, but does not yet come to any
Although you will consider alternative points conclusion on which position is most convincing.
o view, you already know what position you Typically, this type o introduction may end with
will end up with. The essay intends to show a question that will be answered later in the
why this position is the most convincing one, e s s a y.
according to you.
Example: This essay will attempt to demonstrate Example: Does social conditioning infuence
that, although social conditioning infuences our human beings actions to the extent that the very
actions, human beings are still, ultimately, ree to existence o their reedom is threatened?
choose what path to ollow.
Advantages: very clear beginning, that can Advantages: the essay is a genuine exploration
help the reader but also the writer keep the o several points o view that mimics what a
ocus o the essay in mind. The thesis can convey philosopher should do when presented with an
condence and competence: the writer has issue. The point is to analyse and evaluate various
thought about this beore and knows his/her perspectives beore coming to a conclusion. There
own position on the matter. This is a style that is is more suspense and the question can really hook
avoured by a growing number o teachers and the reader.
examiners.
Disadvantages: it can be a shame to give the Disadvantages: it may be harder to remain
game away so early on. The suspense is lost. The ocused, and easier to digress away rom the
essay can become the deence o one point on philosophical issue at hand. It can seem that the
view rather than a genuine exploration o several writer is actually thinking about this or the rst
points o view. time, which should not be the case ater two years
o philosophy!
Activity: Pick one o the stimuli above and practise writing both styles
o introduction. Is there one you preer? It may be a good idea to discuss
this with your teacher too.
3. Once you have a thesis (whether you write it down or keep it in
your head!) , make a list o the evidence you could use to support
it. This should include historical or contemporary examples,
philosophers theories and arguments, as well as arguments rom
other areas o knowledge, such as sciences. Bear in mind that, in an
essay, all o these will need to be j ustifed and not j ust stated. Their
relevance to your chosen philosophical issue will need to be evident
or explained. Some relevance to the stimulus can make the evidence
used even stronger.
4. Pick one piece o evidence listed above (perhaps the one you know
in most depth) , and use it to practise your analysis and evaluation
skills, making a clear dierence between them:
318
FREEDOM
Analysis some guiding questions Evaluation some guiding questions
What perspective is this piece o evidence How convincing is this piece o evidence? How
supporting, and why? does it compare to its criticisms, and why?
What assumptions can be ound in this piece o Are the assumptions identifed problematic?
evidence? What is the perspective o the person Is this still a reliable piece o evidence, despite
putting this piece o evidence orward? In what assumptions, context and perspective?
context is the piece o evidence put orward?
How useul is this piece o evidence in the
What are the implications o this piece o evidence development o your own argument? What do
(i.e. implications or what it means to be human, you think about it and why? What does it tell
ethical implications, etc.) ? you about your main thesis?
What are common criticisms o this piece o
evidence?
Assessment tip
Turn to Chapter 8: IB Philosophy Assessment for a more detailed account
of what analysis and evaluation involve, and what questions can help you
make sure you are on the right track.
References Cited Laplace, Pierre- S imon. A Philosophical Essay on
Probabilities, with an introductory note by E . T.
Andrew J. Elliot and Daniela Niesta. Romantic B ell. Translated rom the French by Frederick
Red: Red Enhances Mens Attraction to William Truscott and Frederick Lincoln Emory.
Women. Journal of Personality and Social New York: D over Publications, 1 995 .
Psychology 95 , No. 5 ( 2 008) : 1 1 5 01 1 64.
Little, Anthony C., Benedict C. Jones, and
D arwin, C harles. On the Origin of Species. Lisa M. DeBruine. Facial Attractiveness:
John Murray, 1 85 9. Now available at E volutionary B ased Research . Philosophical
http : / / darwin- o nline . o rg. u k/ co nte nt/ Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
rame se t? ite mID = F 3 7 3 & vie wtyp e = te xt& Sciences 3 66, No. 1 5 71 ( 1 2 June 2 01 2 ) : 1 63 8
pageseq=1 (accessed 21 October 201 4) . 1 6 5 9 . Available at http: / / www. ncbi. nlm. nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC31 30383/ (accessed 28
de B eauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. Translated October 201 4) .
by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-
C hevallier. Introduced by Judith Thurman. Livingstone, Tessa. The New Gender D ivide.
New York: Vintage, 2 009. TES Newspaper, 9 May 2 008 ( updated 4 August
2 008) . Available at http: //www. tes. co.uk/
DNA Learning Centre. Criminals Common article.aspx?storycode=261 9363 (accessed
Features, F. Galton. Available at http:// 28 October 201 4) .
www.dnalc.org/view/1 5 781 - C riminals-
common-eatures-F-Galton.html (accessed Marx, Karl. Theses on Feuerbach ( S tuttgart: J. W. H.
28 October 201 4) . D ietz, 1 888) ; available at http://www.marxists.
org/archive/marx/works/1 845/theses/ (accessed
Fitzgerald, F. S cott. The Great Gatsby. New York: 28 October 201 4) .
Charles Scribners, 1 925. Reproduced here rom
http : / / cro s s re - it. ino / te xt/ the - gre at- gatsb y/
chapter-8 ( accessed 2 8 O ctober 2 01 4) .
319
6 BEING HUMAN
Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics. Urbana, IL: University Sartre, Jean- Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism.
o Illinois Press, 2000. Yale: Yale University Press, 2 007.
Ministry o Justice. Social Risk Factors or Stebbing, L. Susan. Philosophy and the Physicists.
Involvement in C rime. In New Zealand Criminal London: Methuen, 1 937.
Justice Sector Outcomes Report: Strategic Policy
Brief. New Zealand: Ministry o Justice, 2 009. Studebaker, B enj amin. A C ritique o
Available at http://www.j ustice.govt.nz/j ustice- Existentialism, 5 S eptember 2 01 2 . Available
se cto r/ drive rs - o - crim e / do cu m e nts / sp b - s o cial- at http: //benj aminstudebaker.com/2 01 2 /09/05 /
risk-actors (accessed 28 October 201 4) . a-critique-o-existentialism/ (accessed 28
October 201 4) .
Rousseau, Jean- Jacques. Discourse on the Origin and
Basis of Inequality Among Men [Second Discourse] Taylor, Richard. Action and Purpose. Englewood
( France, 1 75 5 . Available at http: //www. Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1 966. Extract also
constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm (accessed available at http://www.inormationphilosopher.
28 October 201 4). com/solutions/philosophers/taylorr/ (accessed
28 October 201 4) .
Rousseau, Jean- Jacques. On the Social Contract,
Or Principles of Political Right. France, 1 762 . Thiry, Paul-Henri. The System ofNature, Or the Laws
Available at http://www.constitution.org/j j r/ ofthe Moral and Physical World, vol. 1 . Edited
socon.htm (accessed 28 October 201 4). by Robert D. Richardson. Translated by H. D .
Robinson. Mirbaud, 1 770. Available at http://
S artre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Humanism. www. gu te nb e rg. o rg/ f le s / 8 9 0 9 / 8 9 0 9 - h/ 8 9 0 9 - h.
Translated rom the French by Philip Mairet. htm#link2H_4_0022 (accessed 22 October 201 4) .
London: Methuen, 1 948.
S artre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Translated
rom the French by Hazel E. B arnes. New York:
Philosophical Library, 1 95 6.
320
BEING HUMAN 321
7 Identity
Personal identity
Identity over time
Social and cultural identity
Some essential questions:
Who am I?
What makes me me?
What makes me the same person I was 10 years ago?
What sort o changes could I survive?
What would bring my existence to an end?
What makes it the case that some past or uture being, rather than
another, is you or I?
To what extent does culture inuence or defne my identity?
Stimulus 1
Life is a valuable and unique opportunity
to discover who you are.
But it seems as soon as you near
answering that age-old question,
something unexpected always happens
to alter your course.
And who it is you thought you were
suddenly changes.
Then comes the frustrating realization
that no matter how long life endures,
no matter how many experiences
are muddled through in this existence,
you may never really be able
to answer the question .
Who am I?
B ecause the answer, like the seasons,
constantly, subtly, inevitably changes.
And who it is you are today,
is not the same person you will be tomorrow.
Sha Eena, 87th Queen of Harrowbeth1
1 see http://www.harrowbeth.com/
7 BEING HUMAN
Questions
1. Thinking about the stimulus above identiy the issues it suggests
which are associated with person identity? Write a list.
2. Which issue do you think is the most important one?
3. Can you think o any eatures o personal identity that are not
suggested in the stimulus?
The issue o personal identity is a modern problem, although there Create a list of elements
are reerences to it as ar back as ancient Greece. The reason why that make up you.
it became an issue was that it has traditionally been solved by the
presumed existence o the soul (in a number o traditions including Which ones do you believe
Western, C onucian, and Hindu) . With the legitimacy o the soul being you could lose and still
questioned, especially in the modern era o scientic knowledge, the remain you? For example,
question o how to dene the uniqueness o an individual became a i you get a haircut, even
signicant philosophical question. This question has been prompted a radical one, are you still
by the increasingly important role that identity plays in cultural, legal, you? Obviously, you have
moral, religious, even scientic contexts. This concern is a relatively lost some hair, changed
new one in Western thought a concern o the modern era dened as your look, even removed
post-1 7th-century. It is usually stated that the English philosopher Locke some hair colouring, but
introduced this as an explicit philosophical problem in his Essay Concerning you are still you.
Human Understanding ( 1 689) . He responded to a perceived deciency in
Descartes concept o the sel. Descartes argued that I think, thereore I
am establishing the certainty o existence. But Locke pointed out that
Descartes had not secured the certainty o existence over time. According
to Locke, the concept o the sel now had to encompass a justication
o how the sel endured. While our everyday language assumes a
permanent personal identity, an enduring sel, it is a dierent question
when considering the philosophical debate. Nearly all philosophical
systems rom around the world have attempted to answer the question
o the enduring sel, even occasionally rejecting the possibility o an
enduring sel. In contemporary philosophical debates especially, there
are many positions oered with many o them highly complex in their
assumptions and reasoning. There are many examples o how the
enduring sel has been argued and equally how it has been challenged.
C onsequently, this subject is an intriguing topic or analysis and
evaluation. There are sound reasons why this issue needs to be explored
urther, even resolved, given the complexities o our modern existence.
The question of identity: the Ship of Theseus p A 3rd-century BCE Roman
mosaic foor showing
An interesting story that has become synonymous with the issue o Theseus returning to Athens,
personal identity is the Ship o Theseus, which is requently reerred to excavated in Tunisia
in philosophical discussion, so it is worth refecting upon here. Theseus
was a hero in ancient Athens who deeated the Minotaur on the island
o C rete while rescuing some Athenian captives. Victorious, he then
sailed them back to Athens to be hailed as a hero o the city. To honour
him, the Athenian leaders secured the ship and once a year paraded
it in the harbour. The ship was, o course, made o wood, so gradually
it started to deteriorate. Each time it needed a repair the shipbuilders
xed the problem, replacing the various damaged parts o the ship.
322
According to Greek legend, as reported by Plutarch, IDENTITY
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth o Athens returned [rom Guiding question
Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down
even to the time o Demetrius Phalereus, or they took away the old How do we identify
planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their something?
place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the
philosophers, or the logical question o things that grow; one side
holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending
that it was not the same.2
The ship is repaired gradually but nonetheless eventually every part o ANOTHER
the old ship is replaced. Is it thereore the same ship as the one on which
Theseus returned to Athens? Do any o the replacement parts cause the VERSION
original ship to cease to exist?
A more modern version
Hobbes introduced a urther dimension to this puzzle. He wondered o this story is about
what would happen i all the original parts o Theseus ship were a collector o amous
collected by someone rom the scrap heap in the shipyard, who used Formula One racing cars.
them to build a second ship. He puts them all together again and claims The collector agrees to
that this is the real Ship o Theseus. buy the championship-
winning car just beore its
Which one is the real Ship o Theseus? Is it the one that is paraded fnal race. In this race the
each year, witnessed by the crowds attending the occasion? O r is it driver loses control and
the one reconstructed rom the original pieces discarded over time? crashes the car, damaging
Regardless o your answer, understanding the question requires over 90% o the car.
an understanding o the various conceptual rameworks used to Engineers rebuild it, but
determine an understanding o the issue and the ormulation o a in the process have to
position. This requires an analytical strategy to undertake developing replace over 90% o the
this understanding and an evaluative ramework in order to assess the car. The collector reuses
various components o this philosophical issue. to buy the car, arguing
it is a new car and he
In the modern debate, the issue o identity is oten discussed in terms had wanted to buy the
o transporter machines as seen in Star Trek. D iscussions also include crashed car instead (or a
scenarios such as transplanting brains. Presently these are in the lot less money!) . Is it still
realm o science fction, although there are claims by uturists that the same car?
these possibilities are coming closer and closer. Probably one o the
most amous instances o the issue o personal identity is Doctor Who. Links
The D octor, as he is known, is a Time Lord who has the ability to
travel back and orth through space and time using a device called the Other questions are also
TARD IS ( which stands or Time And Relative D imension In S pace) . evident in this issue. For
An interesting aspect o being a Time Lord is the ability (and need) to example, this is also a
regenerate when they die. The Doctor has regenerated in a new body question of authenticity,
and the character continues. The show actually changes this assumption discussed in Chapter 5:
o the continuity o identity in an episode called Journeys End (2008) . The Self and the Other.
In this episode an accident creates a replica o the D octor. The replica
is made o dierent atoms and displays a dierent personality (as all
regenerations have) . However, his memories are the memories o the
real still existing D octor. Rosa, his companion, asserts that this replica
is not the same doctor. Is she right?
2 Plutarch, Vita Thesei, 2223; reproduced from https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html
(accessed 29 October 2014).
323
7 BEING HUMAN
This is not only illustrated by science ction. Raymond Martin, in The Rise
and Fall ofthe Soul and Self: An Intellectual History ofPersonal Identity, suggests
that Epicharmus, an ancient Greek comic playwright, broached the subject
o personal identity in one o his plays in the 5th century BCE. Martin
retells this scene in the play as ollows:
In this scene, a lender asks a debtor to pay up. The debtor replies by To listen to an interview
asking the lender whether he agrees that anything that undergoes with Raymond Martin
change, such as a pile o pebbles to which one pebble has been added on the issue o
or removed, thereby becomes a dierent thing. The lender says that personal identity
he agrees with that. Well, then, says the debtor, arent people go to http://www.
constantly undergoing changes? Yes, replies the lender. So, says philosophytalk.org/
the debtor, it ollows that I am not the same person as the one who sho ws/ p e rso nal- ide ntity-
was indebted to you and, so, I owe you nothing. The lender then hits 0#sthash.ul1 8orYN.dpu
the debtor, who protests loudly at being abused. The lender replies
that the debtors complaint is misdirected since he the lender is TOK link
not the same person as the one who hit him a moment beore.3
Identity is not just a
This captures the key elements o the issue about personal identity even consideration in philosophy.
in contemporary debates. How can something that is always changing Other disciplines also
have an individual identity that is the same over time? Other potential consider the question
investigations are how is the concept o personal identity conceived and o identity. For example,
what are the implications or the particular type or denition o personal companion issues such as
identity. The issue o personal identity covers the issue o attributing individuality, social identity,
responsibility to the correct agent and our understanding o ourselves as and cultural identity are
individuals with ree will and a uture. Similarly, within philosophy a discussed in psychology,
position on personal identity infuences and is infuenced by the debates sociology, anthropology,
on the sel, human nature, mind and body, personhood, and ree will. law, and even the
experimental sciences.
Understanding the issue of personal identity
Questions
In Hesses novel Siddhartha ( 1 92 2 ) , a riend asks the protagonist the
simple question, Who is he? and he responds by saying, I do not What methodology does
know; I know as little as you. I am on the way. I was a rich man but I each o these disciplines
am no longer, and what I will be tomorrow I do not know Where use to explore the issue
is Siddhartha the Brahmin, where is Siddhartha the Samana [ascetic] , o identity?
where is Siddhartha the rich man?4 The question that emerges out o
this refection is, has his identity changed? In order to understand this How is the methodology
question the conceptual rameworks that are essential to dening the determined?
issue need to be established.
What infuence does the
As should already be evident, the question o personal identity is an methodology have on
extension o the question o the sel and o personhood. The question the outcome?
o the sel explores the initial question What is unique about being
a human? and What is it to be a person? This opens up a third
question: What is unique about individual humans?
3 Raymond Martin, The Rise and Fall ofthe Soul and Self: An Intellectual History ofPersonal Identity (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2006) , p. 3.
4 Hesse, Siddhartha; reproduced rom Hilda Rosners translation in Siddhartha, Demian, and Other Writings, edited
by Egon Schwarz, in collaboration with Ingrid Fry (New York: Continuum Publishing, 2001) , p. 70.
324
IDENTITY
The question o personal identity builds upon question and explores Philosophical
two questions in response. The rst is What dierentiates you rom terms and
another person? The second is What makes you you over time? theories
The rst is the question o individuality. What makes you a dierent
person rom your riend sitting next to you? The second is called The relationship between
the issue o the enduring self. Are you the same person who broke the sel and personal
your mothers sunglasses when you were two years old? Your athers identity is not necessarily
avourite coee mug when you were seven? When you broke your straight orward. There
rst bone when you were 1 2 years old and so on? There are dierent is a concern about the
approaches to these questions. Both questions ask what the conditions inclusion o the concept
o identity are, or the criterion or criteria o determining identity. o the sel in the issue o
personal identity. C an you
This topic thereore asks what conditions need to be satised in order change your sel and retain
or a person to be able to claim they are 1 ) dierent rom the person your identity? For this
next to them and 2 ) the same person as they were yesterday, in previous reason, some philosophers
years, when they were ve years old, and so on. O bviously, a position call it the issue o the
on the sel is oten assumed otherwise this question would be dicult to persistence of identity.
ask. The sel provides the oundation or these questions. C onsequently,
the question o the sel is a topic that establishes the context or this
discussion and is very infuential when determining an answer to
an enduring sel. Interestingly, as philosophers have considered the
question o the enduring sel they have also returned to the question o
the sel, revising assumptions and arguments. In this way, the enduring
sel can be seen as a test o the ounding concept o the sel.
An illustration o this shit in ocus rom being human to personal
identity is provided by the ollowing example. I it was agreed that a
human (or a person) was identied by the use o reason or example,
Aristotles claim that we are rational animals then what dierentiates,
i at all, one rational being rom another. In this instance it might be the
ability o each human to use reason. This distinguishing actor provides
individuality.
Exploring the possibilities
First, there is a need to understand initial reactions to the issue o
personal identity.
Consider the ollowing scenario: Sandra was in a car accident which
resulted in her suering severe brain damage. Her body is being
kept alive by machines. The doctors state that her brain is no longer
unctioning cognitively and she is in a vegetative state. She has no
personality. S he does not respond to her surroundings, nor can she
move o her own volition. The relevant question is, is Sandra still
Sandra? Sandra has been stripped by the car accident o the ability
to think, reason, without her memories or her aspirations. She has
no emotional response to the world and no personality. S he is unable to
initiate actions and interact with, even create, her world. This just
leaves her body. Is this enough to claim that the body is still S andra? O r
is one the actors mentioned above essential to her identity? Or is it a
particular combination o these actors? This issue is close to the issue o
the sel but it asks, what is it that gives a person an identity?
This can be taken urther, by asking how do you know a persons
identity is the same over time? Peter Unger calls or an inquiry into
325
7 BEING HUMAN
our persistence conditions that must appreciate what is involved
in a philosophically adequate conception o ourselves. [ ] such
an adequate concept must be well suited or engagement with our
central prudential thoughts and concerns [ ] . And it must be well
suited or our engagement with morality. 5 C entral to his concern is
the question o responsibility or an action. A classic example is the
court case in 1 993 o Ivan Polyukovich, a man who was accused o
war crimes or the 1 942 murder o 850 Jews in Ukraine, 51 years
earlier. O ne simple question was asked, was he the same person
who had committed these atrocities? He was a rail, gentle man,
still happily married, adored by his grandchildren and respected
or his many contributions to his local community. Was he the
same man who had murdered 850 people when he was younger?
Answering this question is one reason or exploring the issue o
personal identity. Another is our understanding o ourselves as
individuals with ree will and a uture. I we do not know i we will
be the same person in the uture, why do we plan or this uture by
investing in quality education, putting money aside, and seeking out
opportunities. How do we know there is a continuum o identity rom
our context o the present moment?
EXPLORATION ACTIVITY When it is time to pay it back your riend
tells you he or she is not the same person and
Can I borrow some money? thereore does not have to repay the debt o
someone else.
This activity can be used to explore the opinions
o people outside your classroom. Present this Ask: How would you prove to your riend that
scenario to your riends and amily. he or she is the same person?
A riend borrows money o you one day Record their responses or urther discussion.
and agrees to pay it back in a couple o days.
The responses to the scenario in the exploration activity above oten Thought experiment
include some o the ollowing:
Think o a snowman. The
Same soul sun comes out and the
snowman starts to melt.
Same memories When do you consider it to
no longer be a snow man?
Same body At what point does it stop
being a snowman and start
The promise made by the individual being a lump o ice? What
criteria do you use to judge
The opinion o other people. when this point occurs?
It should not be surprising that these are also refected in the
philosophical debate. For now it is worth thinking about the issue o
change and its role on an understanding o the issue o personal identity.
So what changes would have to happen or you to say that you no longer
exist? In other words, what can change about you yet you still survive, or
are regarded as the same person? Would it be having your ngernails cut?
Your hair cut? In a similar manner you can ask the question o whether
5 Peter Unger, The Survival of the Sentient, Nos 34, No. s14 (2000) : 326; originally published in Philosophical
Perspectives 14 (2000) 34pp.
326
IDENTITY
having an organ transplant would mean that your identity would transer
with it? Is it your heart i it is transplanted? Your ace? Your brain? Your
soul? Another way o conceiving o this is to ask what the tolerance is or
change beore too much change means something new exists.
In summary
This is a philosophical issue that fnds its initial investigation in the concept
o the sel. However, i properly delineated, this is an issue o identity o a
category such as a human or a person or an issue o individuality and
an issue o the sel (the personal) . The enduring sel asks what is it that
must be retained in your sel, whatever that is, or you to exist over time?
Stimulus 2
For this stimulus, identiy an issue and corresponding point o
discussion in relation to personal identity.
ASSESSMENT PRACTICE Questions
The stimulus above could suggest the ollowing: To what extent is the
body a defning eature
the experience o disappearance or receding o an individual o the person?
the disconnect o the other What is the importance
o the other in the
the issue o identity in a decontextualizing experience ormation o identity?
How would you justiy these interpretations and their connection to How important
the philosophical issue o personal identity? is meaning to
individuality?
Understanding key philosophical distinctions
How does an individual
Beore we explore the various positions on personal identity it is come into existence?
worthwhile clariy some o the key philosophical distinctions that are
present in the debate regarding personal identity. These will eature Can an identity be taken
in many o the secondary readings you will cover and it is thereore rom an individual?
important to be at least amiliar with them as they are part o the debate.
The frst distinction concerns the meaning o identical and is discussed
in terms o qualitative versus numerical. This relates to the debate
327
7 BEING HUMAN
on individuality or individuation, or What is it that dierentiates Assessment tip
one person rom another?. The second distinction is necessary and
sufcient. This distinction is important as it provides an insight into the Given the assessment of
criterion or criteria o personal identity or the enduring sel, or What the core theme, an in-depth
makes me me over time?. These include qualitative versus numerical, understanding is not
and necessary versus sufcient. essential for a quality
analysis ofthe issue of
Qualitative versus numerical personal identity in an exam
context. However, ifyou
The frst distinction is qualitative versus numerical. Qualitative identity choose this topic for your
reers to exact similarity and is usually illustrated by reerence to internal assessment you
identical twins or the nursery rhyme characters Tweedledum and might need to include this
Tweedledee rom Lewis C arrolls Through the Looking-Glass ( 1 872 ) . issue or aspects ofthis issue
They are the same in terms o qualities yet they are dierent people in your analysis.
or characters. This is not the identity issue that is the concern o
this chapter. A similar case is oten illustrated by reerence to Jekyll
and Hyde. Robert Louis S tevensons story The Strange Case of Dr
Jekyll and Mr Hyde ( 1 886) ocuses on one man who has two distinct
moral personalities. In modern psychiatry this condition is known as
dissociative identity disorder. When D r Jekyll transorms into Mr Hyde
they are qualitatively dierent but they are the same person. Again this
is not the identity issue being discussed in this chapter. Instead, it is the
issue o numerical identity. In simple terms this is indicated by the equals
sign in a mathematical statement such as 2 + 2 = 4. 2+ 2 and 4 are
the same, standing or the same number, even i expressed dierently.
This is understood by the example o a young child who does something
naughty, such as breaking a vase. Twenty years later, is that child still the
same person who broke that vase? Well, qualitatively she is dierent in
that she has grown and changed orm (to a certain extent) . But she is
not numerically dierent.
E XTE N S I O N
Numerical identity is oten called Leibnizs Law. This is the claim that
A is the same as B only i everything true about A is also true about
B. This is not strictly applicable to the issue o personal identity unless
the conditional, x and y are identical i any property possessed by x at
time t is also possessed by y at time t, is added. This introduces a ourth
dimension (temporality) to the issue. This is a controversial addition,
with some philosophers believing it compromises the principle.
However, other philosophers, including John Perry, have disagreed
with this objection. This position is called our-dimensionalism. This
position can be used to answer the Ship o Theseus conundrum.
Necessary versus sufcient Further reading
The second distinction is necessary versus sufcient. When we ask For a more detailed
the question What is a Z?, we are asking about the nature o Z, introduction to necessary
not what is the meaning o Z or what is the concept o Z. As such it versus sufcient conditions
is an ontological question, which is a metaphysical question. It is see the discussion in
asking or the conditions o Z to be outlined to enable someone to Chapter 3: Personhood.
identiy Z. This is the question o sufciency. It can, however, also
328
IDENTITY
be asking what Z is made up o, what it is composed o, as well. This is LINK TO
the question o necessity. Both o these questions are answered in OPTIONAL THEME
terms o I then or conditional statements. Conditional statements
relate the truths o two propositions and connect them by stating that The sel and thereore
i the rst statement (antecedent) is true, then the second statement personal identity are
(consequent) is true. key concepts in political
philosophy. They are
In terms o personal identity these conditionals can be ramed in the especially relevant when
ollowing way: considering political
ideologies.
I I am the same person at times t1 and t2, then [condition( s) ] .
Philosophical
I [condition( s) ] , then I am the same person at times t1 and t2. terms and
theories
The emphasis changes in each o these two statements between the
antecedent and the consequent. The approaches to
personal identity can
The rst reers to necessity. A necessary condition is one that must be also be divided into two
satised beore whatever is being reerred to can belong to a class. The categories: intrinsic and
ocus is on the antecedent. extrinsic relations. The
rst, intrinsic relations,
The second reers to suciency. A sufcient condition is one that reers to a physical and/or
is enough to conclude immediately whatever is being reerred to is a psychological relationship
member o a class. The ocus is on the consequent. between two selves that is
justied by a material or
In a basic orm the dierence between these two conditions is must mental connection. The
and enough. second, extrinsic relations,
reers to a relationship
This denes the measure o identity and in the context o personal between two selves whose
identity indicates the conditions required in order or identity to be connection is justied by
asserted. It is important to remember that these conditions are not other people.
causes. The presence o this aspect o a person does not cause personal
identity, j ust provides the conditions or identity.
Understanding Personal Identity
We have looked at a number o dierent scenarios and thought
experiments that highlight the issue o personal identity. The most
amous example is the Ship o Theseus. Regardless o your response
to this question, understanding the issue requires an understanding
o the various conceptual rameworks that can be used to determine
both an understanding o the issue and the ormulation o a position.
Understanding the conceptual ramework(s) allows you to develop an
analytical strategy that can be used to investigate the issue and then by
assessing the various components argue a position on the issue using your
own evaluative ramework. Personal identity can be approached using a
number o conceptual rameworks. Each o these rameworks emerges
out o a particular approach to doing philosophy that has been infuenced
by a number o actors such as accepted or unchallenged assumptions,
methodology, and purpose. In broad terms there have been three phases
in the Western traditions consideration o the issue o personal identity.
the rst was initiated by Plato and his arguments dominated the debate,
albeit an indirect one until the publication o the works o Locke. His
approach maintained its preeminence until the middle o the 1 960s
when a number o developments occurred including a shit rom an
understanding that the issue o personal identity was one about intrinsic
relations to one where it was believed to be about extrinsic ones.
329
7 BEING HUMAN
These dierent approaches can be dened equally as eectively as
individualism versus communitarianism.
Individualism
Material substance bodily criterion o identity
Immaterial substance soul theory o identity
Immaterial Non-substance psychological continuity theory
C o m m u nitarianis m
Identity in context sociocultural identity
Individualism ocuses on an essence that denes an individuals unique FIND OUT MORE
identity. The rst argument is the bodily criterion o identity. This position
argues that it is our body that denes who we are and determines how Christopher Shields
we can exist over time. The next step responds to questions about presents a discussion
the validity o the claim that our body remains the same thereore on the issue o personal
maintaining our identity. Instead, this position argues or a substance identity
that does not change. This is called the soul theory o identity. The nal
position rejects the existence o the soul and instead looks to something http : / / p hilo so p hyb ite s .
that is unique to an individual but does not rely on something that 1 ) com/2008/1 1 /
changes and 2) is dicult to prove exists. This is called the theory o ch ris to p he r- s hi. htm l
psychological continuity. All these essential positions can be rejected.
Communitarians argue that out identity comes rom our context: out Philosophical
amily, our culture, our society, even our education. This position oten terms
assumes that we do not have an essential sel, an innate human nature;
rather, our identity is a product o our social environment. Materialism, the theory
that everything is ormed
Exploring the position of individualism o matter and nothing else
exists, is closely associated
Material substance with physicalism, although
sometimes they are argued
The rst position rom the individualist on personal identity is the to be the same position
physical criterion and its ocus on the body. This is the strict materialist expressed rom slightly
position. One o the rst issues that need to be considered with this dierent approaches. In
position is what is material? This is a metaphysical question. A secondary the modern era science
question is the epistemological one, how do you know? These two has been involved in this
questions are interrelated and infuence each other. However, the issue discussion as scientic
o personal identity is primarily a metaphysical issue. In other words, discoveries about matter
a philosopher has a position on what is real and then determines what have contributed to
something can be to exist. this position. These
philosophers have
EXPLORATION ACTIVITY included Daniel Dennett,
W. V. Quine, D onald
This is illustrated by a simple activity. Ask someone to think o a Davidson, John Searle,
unicorn. Then ask them, do they exist? I they say no, then they and Jerry Fodor.
have indicated that something can only exist i it is made out o
material and can be perceived by the senses. I they say yes, then it
is likely that they believe that thoughts in their head are real and
thereore the unicorn they have just thought o exists. (Or they
may believe that they exist in terms o the rst position but are
exceptionally good at avoiding being photographed. This option is
330
IDENTITY
not covered by this discussion.) An obvious response is the question,
i thoughts are real what are they made up o?. This question
asks or a position on the issue o substance to be resolved. In basic
terms, a position can be taken that or something to be real it must
be extended in time and space. For example, it is made out o
atoms. Atoms are the building block o all things that are material.
However, i it is believed that thoughts are real, this rej ects the
assumption that things that exist are made only out o atoms.
This issue can be clearly located in the mindbody problem. I you
reject the idea o the mind (not the brain) and only accept the
existence o the body then this provides the context or personal
identity. C onsequently, a materialist accepts the assumption that
material is the primary component o reality. C onsequently, i
anything else exists, it must be derived rom material. This is the
starting point or the exploration o personal identity rom the
individualism approach.
The body and personal identity
The obvious way in which we identiy people is through the way they
look, or more sp ecifcally the same body. This is called the bodily
criterion o identity ( or occasionally, the biological ap p roach to
personal identity) . This position argues that there must be spatio-
temporal continuity in order or identity to persist. Thereore the role
o the body is key to discussions involving an individuals identity,
regardless o whether or not those involved agree with it as a primary
ocus. As E ric T. O lson observes:
One o the main problems o personal identity is supposed to be
how we relate to our bodies. A ew philosophers endorse what is
called a bodily criterion o personal identity: they say that we are
our bodies, or at any rate that our identity over time consists in
the identity o our bodies. Many more deny this typically on the
grounds that we can imagine ourselves coming apart rom our bodies.
But both sides agree that the bodily criterion is an important view
which anyone thinking about personal identity must consider. 6
I the person you saw today looked the same as they did yesterday you
would confdently say that they were the same person. By look we are
reerring to the body and most signifcantly the ace. They might be
wearing dierent clothes and have a dierent hairstyle but they would
still be the same person. They might have dyed their hair, badly hurt
themselves, or had some cosmetic surgery but they would still be the
same person. But what i they could not remember you? Or i they
reerred to past events that you knew nothing o, or example they
reerred to a dierent spouse and dierent children?
6 Eric T. Olson, Is There a Bodily Criterion of Personal Identity?, in Fraser MacBride (ed.) , Identity and Modality
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) , p. 242.
331
7 BEING HUMAN
REFLECTION Understanding the
issue of continuum
The reverse is also an interesting scenario. What i someone came up
to you whom you had never seen beore and announced he or she The question o the
was your best riend, recalling an event that only you and your best enduring sel is a question
riend had experienced? o continuum. This is
oten dened as a pearl
Would you rely on what you saw ( the persons body) or what you necklace individual
heard (the persons memories) ? pearls do not make a
necklace but when they
The physical criterion requires that a person hold some relation are strung together they
o physical continuity between persons at dierent times. The same become a necklace.
person is thereore the same biological object over time. A common The string is oten
response is to declare that the human body regenerates every seven conceived in the idea o
years, suggesting that this progressive replacement means that you consciousness. However,
are a new person every seven years. There is medical research using a the nature o this
technique involving carbon-1 4 dating, which has led to some interesting consciousness is debated.
acts about regeneration. It turns out that each aspect o our body has
a dierent regeneration time. This ranges rom our gut lining, which Unsurprisingly, this is
is replaced every ve days, to the muscles between the ribs, which are just one o a number o
replaced approximately every 1 5 years. options or conceiving the
issue o personal identity.
Some philosophers argue that the physical criterion o personal identity Another way is to think o
is solved by the existence o D NA. Michael Allen Fox, in Philosophy a fame that is continually
Now, discusses the composition o our bodies as part o the physical passed rom candle to
continuity approach; candle. In the process
there is a continuity but
We all know that our D NA structure is unique to each o us. no real personal identity.
Philosophers who avour the physical criterion o personal identity This is a very dierent
could thereore asten onto DNA as the source o individual concept rom the one
continuity. They might trumpet that a scientic physicalistic based on the Western
solution to the identity problem is nally at hand. C uriously, they notion o consciousness.
have not thus ar seized the opportunity to do so. DNA certainly
seems like a tempting physical carrier or personal identity, because Refection Questions
its as identiying o onesel as anything can be. . . . B ut even here, What must occur or a
hopes are dashed or identity. The human body contains between continuum to be in place?
one and ten trillion cells. Red blood cells have no DNA, but all What is being connected
the others do. It also turns out that only ten percent o the DNA and how is it connected?
present within our bodies belongs to our own cells: the rest reside In other words, what is the
within the ten to one hundred trillion bacteria and other organisms basis o this continuum?
o several hundred species which inhabit our bodies. Hence it now
looks as i what counts as my body, although macroscopically
quite speciable, is, rom the standpoint o genetic coding only ten
percent mine. This leaves us with the awkward conclusion (which
we shall have to accept) that to be me is to cohabit my body with
trillions upon trillions o other organisms, whose genetic coding
radically deviates rom my own DNA blueprint. My body is no
longer simply my body.7
7 Michael Allen Fox, A New Look at Personal Identity, Philosophy Now, No. 62 (July/August 2007) : 11.
332
IDENTITY
The actual biological criterion can be the human being (animal) , the
body, the brain, even the central nervous system. However, while the
bodily criterion is our commonsense understanding o identity, there are
situations where this understanding conficts with other aspects o our
commonsense understanding o this issue.
The rst discussion o the popular thought experiment Brain
Transplant was undertaken by S ydney Shoemaker. He described the
ollowing scenario:
It is now possible to transplant certain organs [i] t is at least
conceivable that a human body could continue to unction
normally i its brain were replaced by one taken rom another human
body Two men, a Mr B rown and a Mr Robinson, had been operated
on or brain tumors, and brain extractions had been perormed on
both o them. At the end o the operations, however, the assistant
inadvertently put B rowns brain in Robinsons head, and Robinsons
brain in Browns head. One o these men immediately dies, but the
other, the one with Robinsons head and B rowns brain, eventually
regains consciousness. Let us call the latter Brownson When asked
his name he automatically replies Brown. He recognizes Browns
wie and amily and is able to describe in detail events in B rowns
lie o Robinsons lie he evidences no knowledge at all.8
REFLECTION QUESTION The majority o people believe that the rst
one is correct. The brain and the memories
Which statement do you think is correct? contained within that brain are the most
Brown is the same person as Brownson. important element o a human. Yet, i this
Or is our intuitive response then the bodily
Robinson acquires a new brain. criterion is alse.
Assessing the bodily criterion
With this position it is argued that our identity is determined by the
identity o our bodies. The conclusion drawn by Shoemaker in the
thought experiment outlined above suggests that it is not a common
sense understanding o personal identity. It is worth recounting what is
being argued. Brian Garrett expressed the bodily criterion argument in
the ollowing manner: Person A at time t1 is identical to person B at
time t2 i and only i A and B have the same body.9
This states that i we have the same body then we are the same person.
However, as we saw earlier, our bodies regenerate over time, and also as
we grow we change. We look very dierent at the age o 5 0 compared
to how we looked when we were ve years old. Can we thereore make
the claim that we are the same person?
8 Sydney Shoemaker, Self-Knowledge and Self-Identity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1963) , pp. 2324.
9 Brian Garrett, What Is This Thing Called Metaphysics? (London: Routledge, 2006) , p. 45.
333
7 BEING HUMAN
The immediate response is to say that change is fne as long as it is not REFLECTION
sudden or comprehensive. Imagine a fve-year-old who goes to sleep ACTIVITY
and wakes up a 5 0-year-old. It would be hard to believe he or she is the
same person. But i the child changes over a span o 45 years? Then that Research the TV series,
is more acceptable. However, i a person is in an accident and comes The United States ofTara.
out o hospital signifcantly dierent, is he or she still the same person? In this TV show the
The suggestion is that a stable and continuous change is sufcient central character(s) has
to determine continuity. The question or bodily criterion is what is dissociative identity
sufcient change or it to be acceptable? disorder (DID) , known
ormerly as multiple
I we take the quantitative approach, what percentage is sufcient? personality disorder. These
I we return to the S hip o Theseus story, one o the questions was 1 7 dierent personalities
when does the ship stop being the ship i the change is gradual? Is exist in the same body. The
it a quantity such as 51 % ? Or is it more to do with signifcant parts fctional stories are based
o the ship, such as the mast or the sails, rather than the planks o on a real person, known
wood? With humans, is hair equivalent to the heart or the brain? This under the pseudonym
requires an answer or the position to be valid. Olson phrases it in the o Karen Overhill, who
ollowing way: lived their lie with this
disorder. Her personalities
what does it take or my body to survive? When do someone included Jensen, an
picked out at one time and someone picked out at another time have 1 1 -year-old black boy. She
the same body? What happens to my body when you cut o my arm, was diagnosed ater Ms
or example? Does my body get a bit smaller and ten pounds lighter? Overhill wrote a doctor a
Does it become a spatially scattered object? Does it make a dierence letter that said: My name
i you cut o my head instead o my arm?10 is Claire. I am seven years
old. I live inside Karen.
FIND OUT MORE
How does the bodily
Research the argument by a deender o animalism, David Wiggins. criterion o personal
The argument or animalism is relational in nature. It relies on the identity account or
psychology o typical members o its kind or the psychology o this possibility?
other individuals.
His position is stated in the ollowing quote: Philosophical
terms
[P] erhaps x is a person i and only i x is an animal alling under
the extension o a kind whose typical members perceive, eel, Animalism argues that
remember, imagine, desire, make projects, move themselves at we are an organism o the
will, speak, carry out projects, acquire a character as they age, are species Homo sapiens and
susceptible to concern or members o their own or like species that our conditions or
conceive o themselves as perceiving, eeling etc. On this account our personal identity or
person is a non-biological qualifcation o animal, and, potentially enduring sel is the same
at least, a cross-classifcation with respect to zoological classifcation as the conditions required
across the grain, so to speak, o the evolution based taxonomy.11 o animals.
10 Eric T. Olson, The Human Animal: Personal Identity Without Psychology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) ,
p. 143.
11 David Wiggins, Sameness and Substance (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980) , p. 171.
334
IDENTITY
Research Questions REFLECTION
How does animalism answer the question o personal identity? ACTIVITY
Does animalism imply that all human animals are people? Justiy Think about the activity
your answer. earlier in the chapter
where you were asked to
Does animalism imply that all people are human animals? Justiy analyse and refect on the
your answer. condition o Sandra.
What is the relationship between the body theory and animalism? What i she came out o
her coma but without
The brain criterion memories and with a
propensity to get angry,
The brain is considered to be a special aspect o all animals and even violent. Given that
consequently a signicant amount o importance is ascribed to this organ. she was a person who
This has been conrmed by neurological research in recent times. It is a prior to the accident was a
part o the body and consequently is included in the arguments put orward kind, loving, and orgiving
by the body criterion position. However, because o its complex nature, person, would she still be
some philosophers have thought that there might be a dimension to the the same person even i
brain that oers something signicant to the theory o personal identity. she had the same body?
The brain is regarded as the physical seat o a persons mental lie and,
as such, contains something that allows personal identity to be secured.
B ut this theory throws up an interesting aspect o identity. The brain
is regarded as the secure oundation o identity but the brain is not the
person in strict terms.
Garrett explores this aspect o the brain theory debate. He uses the
example o a gold statue. Is the statue equal to the lump o gold rom which
it is made? I it was melted down the statue would be lost but the lump o
gold would remain. Hence, they cannot be the same. As Garrett points out:
Its true that the identity conditions o the statue are not the same Who is he?
as those o the lump (as the possibility o meltdown shows) , but we
still have a necessary connection between identity conditions, despite Thomas Nagel is best
the numerical distinctness o the statue and the lump. Non-standard known or his article
or unorthodox materialist theories o personal identity take an What Is it Like to Be a
analogous orm.12 Bat? (1 974) in which
he rejects the reductivist
This is a position argued or by Thomas Nagel (1 937 ) when he says: account o the mind.
However, he is also an
I could lose everything but my unctioning brain and still be me accomplished moral and
the brain is the only part o me whose destruction I could not possibly political philosopher who
survive I am whatever persisting individual in the objective order published his major work
underlies the subjective continuities o that mental lie that I call The Possibility of Altruism
mine I my brain meets these conditions then the core o my sel in 1 970. He currently
what is essential to my existence is my unctioning brain.13 teaches as University
Proessor o Philosophy
and Law at New York
U n iv e r s ity.
12 Brian Garrett, Personal Identity and Self-Consciousness (London: Routledge, 1998) , p. 10.
13 Nagel, The View from Nowhere, p. 40.
335
7 BEING HUMAN
While Nagel does not present a ully worked-out argument or this
theory, leaving it more as a hypothesis, he makes the point that the brain
is an important aspect o anyones identity. As he goes on to explain:
I am not just my brain: I weigh more than three pounds, am more
than six inches high, have a skeleton, etc. But the brain is the only
part o me whose destruction I could not possibly survive. The brain,
but not the rest o the animal, is essential to the sel.14
While in the end Nagel seems to commit to the self, and thereore
identity, as a psychological concept, he raises the point that the brain
needs to be ully acknowledged given the importance o its role in our
existence. In act, it is John Searle who advocates this position with
his biological naturalism. He makes the claim that [c] onscious
states are entirely caused by lower level neurobiological processes in
the brain. C onscious states are thus causally reducible to neurobiological
processes.15 Nagel retains the belie that the mind is ounded in the
brain so the brain is the source o identity, but isnt this an argument
that the sel is the brain but identity comes rom the mind? Obviously
it depends on the relationship between the mind and the brain.16
Williams: the self, the body, and the future REFLECTION
The thought experiment o the Body Swap is a common one in ACTIVITY
discussions about personal identity, whereby the memories o person A
are placed in person B s body, and vice versa. The 2 0th- century E nglish Imagine someone who
moral philosopher Bernard Williams (1 9292003) uses it to make a point has been in a severe car
about the role o the body in personal identity. This thought experiment accident. As a result o
frst appeared in a journal article The Sel and the Future, published the accident they have
in The Philosophical Review in 1 970. He asks the reader to consider what had a personality change.
would happen i beore the swap persons A and B were asked which Are they still the same
body should receive a punishment and which one a reward. We would person? Or have they
assume that the preerence would be to ask that the reward be given to changed into another
the body with person As memories. This suggests that memories are the person?
defning characteristic o personal identity.
But Williams gives the scenario a twist. Person A is told they are going to
have their memories erased, replaced with some fctitious memories, and
then they are going to be tortured. Williams asks the question, Would
you be araid? The suggestion is that you would still be araid and
thereore the body is important to a persons identity.
Williams continues to provide variations. These are:
1 . You have your memories erased, you are given new ake memories,
and then you are to be tortured.
2 . You have your memories erased, you are given copies o another
persons memories, and then you are to be tortured.
14 Ibid.
15 John Searle, Mind: A BriefIntroduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) , p. 113.
16 See Stephen Burwood, Are We Our Brains?, Philosophical Investigations 32, No. 2 (April 2009) : 113133.
336
IDENTITY
3 . You have your memories erased, you are given another persons Who is he?
genuine memories, and then you are to be tortured.
Bernard Williams is the
4. You have your memories erased, you are given another persons ormer Knightbridge
genuine memories, that person is given your memories, and then Proessor o Philosophy
you are to be tortured. at the University o
Cambridge and Deutsch
In each o these scenarios the assumption is that you will be araid o Proessor o Philosophy
being tortured. Williams uses this response to strongly suggest that at the University o
personal identity and thereore the sel are closely tied to the physical C aliornia, B erkeley. He
body. However, it is worth noting that the last scenario mentioned is mostly known as a
above is the same as the rst scenario. In the rst scenario the response moral philosopher due
suggested psychological continuity. However, in the nal scenario the to his most infuential
response suggested that the body was important. Williams suggests that, book, Ethics and the Limits
given this, i people were asked to choose they would preer the latter of Philosophy ( 1 985 ) .
scenario, despite their initial conclusions, making the body identity However, he also wrote
more important. on the topic o the sel in
Problems of the Self ( 1 973 ) .
REFLECTION ACTIVITY He reused to accept the
reductionist tendencies o
Go through Williams thought experiment and especially the modern science seeking
variations. Do you agree with his conclusions? to use the insights o
history, culture, politics
Use the philosophy Experiments online version o Williams and psychology to
thought experiment called Youre B eing Tortured in the explore the nature o
Morning to complete this activity. It can be ound at http:// the moral individual in
p hilo so p hye xp e rime nts. co m/ b o dyswap / D e ault. asp x society through the ideals
o authenticity and sel-
Immaterial substance expression.
The soul and personal identity
The traditional argument or the enduring identity, including
enduring beyond death, is the soul. The belie is that i the body stops
unctioning, the non- physical entity, the soul, will continue to exist. The
soul does not depend on the physical body as the soul is an immaterial,
thinking substance that exists so long as some orm o thought is going
on in it. Plato and Descartes are two philosophers who have held this
view. ( S ee biographies in C hapter 4: Mind and B ody and C hapter 3 :
Personhood, respectively. )
In ancient Greece there was a common belie that when a person died
their soul escaped the body on their last breath and even as their last
breath. This lead to a belie that the soul was invisible matter. While
Plato never articulated a ull theory o the soul in detail there is a strong
suggestion in his writing, especially in Phaedo, that the soul was an
unextended thing or an immaterial substance. In The Republic he suggests
dening the soul in terms o empirical psychology where he rejects a
unitary soul, arguing instead that the mind is in confict. The outcome
o this confict between the three elements o the soul reason, spirit,
and desire determines a persons behaviour and thereore directs the
body. Later in Timaeus, the Phaedrus and Laws, he adj usts the relationship
between the soul and the body, allowing the body to infuence the
soul as well. In terms o personal identity, Plato believed that the soul
337
7 BEING HUMAN
survived the death o the body and thereore the soul was the location
o identity. He even suggested that only reason survived death as spirit
and desire belonged to the body. Regardless o which view should be
taken as his denitive view Plato makes an explicit claim that we are
a thinking thing which is our soul. In the process he argues that our
identity is contained in an immaterial or unextended substance. This
position dominates Western thought or over 1 ,700 years.
What was Aristotles position?
Aristotle, Platos most amous student and arguably his greatest critic,
responded to many o Platos positions and arguments but strangely had
little to say on the issue o the mind and body. While Aristotle rej ected
the emphasis Plato placed on the metaphysical dimension to reality, he
still retained the idea that his Unmoved Mover and possibly his concept
o the rational or intellectual part o the soul (nous) were part o this
metaphysical world. He elt that there was only one world, the physical
world. Everything was thereore made up o both orm and matter. This
oered a orm o materialism, although as noted with some exceptions.
So while the conceptual ramework or a theory o identity is in place or
Aristotle the question did not interest him.
Over a millennia and a hal o debate has passed since Plato and
Aristotle and nearly all philosophical discussion in the Western
tradition is dominated by their philosophies or, more accurately, various
interpretations o them.
FIND OUT MORE
Lucretius (95?54 BCE) was an Epicurean philosopher who wrote
during the Roman era. His philosophy argued or hedonism,
materialism, and atheism and denied the existence o the immaterial
soul. His most infuential work was a philosophical poem, De Rerum
Natura. He infuenced medieval and early modern philosophy rather
than philosophers in his own time. He suggested that identity does
not matter when considering the question o survival; a position that
has regained popularity today.
The Cartesian soul
While the soul theory was only alluded to in Platos work, Descartes
makes an explicit claim that the body and the soul are distinct. Descartes
approached the issue o identity only incidentally as he sought to provide
the newly emerging discipline o the natural science and its empirical
methodology with a rm oundation o knowledge. Approaching
philosophy rom an epistemological point o view and using his amous
sceptical methodology he reasoned that you could only be certain that you
were thinking thereore denying the idea that material objects could hold
this status o certainty and be considered real. While Descartes did not
articulate a specic theory o personal identity this conclusion has specic
implications regarding the role o the mind and the body in identity. B y
inerence, you were not your body, only your mind.
338
IDENTITY
Having established what can be known or certain and thereore a
rst principle o a new philosophy, D escartes sought to explore the
implication o this idea. Descartes argument is explored in Chapter 5:
The S el and the O ther, so the main argument need not be reiterated
here. He draws the conclusion that I had no body and then asks the
question, So what do I have?
Having established that I am and I exist Descartes refected on the
meaning o this:
And then, examining attentively that which I was, I saw that I could
conceive that I had no body, and that there was no world nor place
where I might be; but yet that I could not or all that conceive that I
was not
From that I knew that I was a substance the whole essence or nature
o which is to think, and that or its existence there is no need o any
place, nor does it depend on any material thing; so that this me,
that is to say, the soul by which I am what I am, is entirely distinct
rom body. 17
And thinking? Descartes ound specic implications to its role in identity:
What o thinking? I nd here that thought is an attribute that belongs
to me; it alone cannot be separate rom me. I am, I exist, that is
certain. But how oten? Just when I think; or it might possibly be
the case i I ceased entirely to think that I should likewise cease
altogether to exist
To speak accurately I am not more than a thing which thinks, that is to
say a mind or a soul, or an understanding, or a reason, which are terms
whose signicance was ormerly unknown to me. I am, however, a
real thing and really exist; but what thing? I have answered: a thing
which thinks.18
This corrected the Platonic concept o the mind/soul that had been
used with the Aristotelian one leading to thinkers such as Augustine
and Avicenna to argue that the body was important to an individual
and by implication personal identity. D escartes reinorced the belie
that the mind was one type o substance and the body another. He
still had to contend with Platos notion that the souls relation to the
body was one o a pilot to a ship, thereore providing the body with
some relevance. In other words, they were intermingled, orming a
unit. Descartes argued that there was only a casual relationship and
they were thereore not one singular entity. Again, the role o the
body is negated.
17 Descartes, Discourse on Method and Meditations, Part IV, p. 23.
18 Ibid., p. 73.
339
7 BEING HUMAN
Assessing the non-material substance theory of
personal identity
Platos position on the soul and thereore his implied theory o personal
identity is linked to his metaphysics and his theory o the orms. In his
Socratic dialogue, Phaedo, Plato repeats an argument that he makes in
The Republic. Here is S ocrates debating with S immias:
Socrates: Do we say there is such a thing as justice by itsel or not?
S immias: We do say so, certainly.
Socrates: Such a thing as the good and beautiul?
Simmias: O course!
Socrates: And did you ever see one o them with your eyes?
S ocrates: Never. 19
Platos metaphysical system allows him to claim the existence o a soul. TOK links
However, this leads to difculties. According to Plato, the soul has
no gender. There is no emale soul or male soul. How did he know? An implication of the
C onsequently, maj or obj ection to this claim ocuses on the question o soul theory is a kind of
how do you know that the soul exists, and i it does exist, how do you scepticism. If you are
know that the same soul is contained within the same person? Even i unable to determine
the existence o the soul is accepted, it would still not provide the ability whether or not the individual
to determine i the person you are talking to is the same person whom in front of you has the same
you spoke to the day beore. soul and is therefore the
same person as yesterday
S o a real concern is determining that the soul exists. Yet, this is part then you might start to
o the broader criticism o dualism. While the concept o the soul has question whether or not the
sound explanatory powers in certain contexts it is hard to fnd evidence assumption that they are
or the existence o the mind in a metaphysical reality. I the position the same is satisfactory.
on the mind and the body is not tenable, then Descartes theory o the
immortal soul struggles to be valid. S urely, art o j ustiying the existence
o the soul would be to also argue how the soul can be individuated, or
how they can be dierentiated rom each other and over time.
These are signifcant criticisms and are accepted by many philosophers.
However, one philosopher, Richard Swinburne argues that this
criticism is problematic because o the expectation o empirical evidence.
Swinburne argues that this is verifcationalism without justifcation.
In other words, it demands a particular standard o truth by imposing
a particular process o testing. Swinburne questions the suitability o
this measure o truth. In response it is argued that the theory o the
soul is based on aith rather than empirical evidence. Only the activities
o the soul are empirically observable and the role o the soul remain
mysterious.20
19 Plato, Great Dialogues
20 See Richard Swinburne, Personal Identity: The Dualist Theory, in Sydney Shoemaker and Richard Swinburne,
Personal Identity (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984) , pp. 166.
340
IDENTITY
D escartes j usties his position using the argument o conceivability. We Paper 3 links
can conceive o ourselves surviving without our bodies thereore it is
possible. As a consequence, we must have an immaterial source o our How do diferent schools o
identity. It is oten regarded as suitable because it allows us to believe philosophy justiy
that we can exist beyond the lie o our physical body. The measure o their claims?
conceivability needs to be urther dened. Without urther argument this
justication remains too broad and i extended to other issues allows the Is a decision about
justication o some aretched ideas. It is not a sustainable justication. methodology more
I you refect on this justication you will realize that while you say important, than evidence?
I have a painul tooth you believe that the I being used has a direct
relationship with thinking and it is not mediated through our bodies. Is
this a valid assumption? Similarly i conceivability is a valid justication,
why do I retain the immaterial substance o the mind/soul? Cant I exist
without a mind/soul? Surely this too is conceivable? This invites the
question, does conceivability as a justication lead to an acceptance o the
Bundle Theory o the Sel and thereore identity? (For more inormation
see C hapter 4: Mind and B ody and C hapter 5 : The Sel and the Other.)
Note that the position on the soul has shited rom a materialist position
to a non-materialist position but not rom a substantialist position. The
soul is a non-material substance, an incorporeal, non-extended mental
substance. There is still something substantial that composes the sel and
thereore personal identity, although it is not dependent upon or derived
rom material. Interestingly, it is unchanged by experiences in the world.
TOK links
Faith as a Way of Knowing in TOK.
Is it air to ask Richard Swinburne to adhere to a specic standard o
truth?
What role does reason play in a claim based on aith?
Is empirical evidence essential when justiying a knowledge claim?
Is repeatability an important component in the validation o
knowledge?
Is there only one methodology or generating knowledge?
The Nature of Evidence
Are there diferent standards or evidence in diferent Areas oKnowledge?
In philosophy what is the standard or evidence?
Immaterial non-substance and psychological
continuity
Psychological continuity and personal identity
The reerences to Locke so ar have already established an
understanding o his approach to philosophical issues. As an empiricist
he believed that observation was the best method to use to discover the
truth. He was reacting to the methodology o scholastic Aristotelianism,
341
7 BEING HUMAN
whose assumptions about knowledge were being challenged by
the emergence o the new sciences. Newtons Principia ( 1 687) was
infuential among intellectuals outside the Christian Church, including
Locke. Locke rejected the neo-Platonist epistemology that was
dominant and central to Descartes philosophical argument. This led
Locke to argue that we have no experiences o substances, only o
properties. To gain insight into the sel, Locke similarly believed that
you could use your own experiences and thereore introspection, but as
a result o this dierent epistemological oundation he came to dierent
conclusions to Descartes.
In the ollowing passage rom An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
(1 690) Locke lays out this method:
To nd wherein personal identity consists, we must not being considered, in this case, whether the
consider what person stands or; which, I think, same self be continued in the same or divers
is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason substances. For, since consciousness always
and refection, and can consider itsel as itsel, accompanies thinking, and it is that which makes
the same thinking thing, in dierent times and everyone to be what he calls self, and thereby
places; which it does only by that consciousness distinguishes himsel rom all other thinking
which is inseparable rom thinking, and, as it things; in this alone consists personal identity, i.e.
seems to me, essential to it: it being impossible the sameness o a rational being: and as ar as
or any one to perceive without perceiving that this consciousness can be extended backwards
he does perceive. When we see, hear, smell, to any past action or thought, so ar reaches the
taste, eel, meditate, or will anything, we know identity o that person; it is the same self now
that we do so. Thus it is always as to our present it was then; and it is by the same self with this
sensations and perceptions: and by this every present one that now refects on it, that that
one is to himsel that which he calls self:it action was done.21
Locke identies the issue relating to being a person not a man ( sic) and Augustine o Hippo
as such needs to be delineated because person is a orensic term, (354430) claimed a
involving praise and blame, and a capacity to obey laws. For Locke, a similar conclusion to
person is a particular type o sel-refective consciousness. The key Locke 1 2 centuries earlier
to Lockes consideration is consciousness, or being aware that we are when he wrote, Great
thinking. For more on the concept o consciousness see the section is the power o memory
Consciousness and sel-consciousness in Chapter 3: Personhood. . . . and this thing is the
This, Locke believes, always accompanies thinking and consciousness mind, and this am
is also an essential part o the thinking process. C onsequently, I mysel.22
consciousness is the aspect o our selves that makes possible our
belie that we are the same identity over time and even in dierent
locations. Locke attaches the capacity to orm and retain memories to
consciousness. Memories become central to the enduring sel.
21 Locke, O Identity and Diversity, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, Chapter XXVII, p. 246.
I you have difculty with the style o writing and language reer to a version translated into modern English at
http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/metaphysics/readings/Locke.IdentityAndDiversity(JFB) .pd (accessed 30
October 2014).
22 Saint Augustine, The Confessions ofSaint Augustine, translated and introduced by John K. Ryan (New York:
Image Books, 1960) , p. 211.
342
IDENTITY
According to Locke, remaining the same person has nothing to
do with remaining the same substance, either physical or mental.
Instead, personal identity has only to do with consciousness: it is by
the consciousness of ones present thoughts and actions that the self
is conceived, and it is through the continuous link of memory that
the self is extended back to past consciousness thereby forming a
personal identity.
ANALYSIS ACTIVITY Think about what this means.
Lockes analogy of the prince and What is Lockes purpose of presenting the
the cobbler analogy of the prince and the cobbler?
For should the soul of a prince, carrying with What argument regarding personal identity is
it the consciousness of the princes past life, presented in this analogy?
enter and inform the body of a cobbler, as soon
as deserted by his own soul, every one sees Do you think this is an effective analogy?
he would be the same person with the prince, Assess its strengths and weaknesses.
accountable only for the princes actions: but
who would say it was the same man? Note the change that has occurred in Lockes
argument. Descartes argued for a thinking
John Locke23 thing, which he associated with the soul. This
was an immaterial substance. Locke rejects the
reliance on any substance and attaches identity
to an immaterial non-substance.
Lockes argument is supported by Leibniz (1 6461 71 6) , who suggested the
following stimulus:
. . . the immortality which is demanded in morals and in religion does
not consist in this perpetual subsistence [o soul] alone, or without
the memory o what one had been it would not be in any way desirable.
Let us suppose that some individual were to become King o China at
one stroke, but on condition o orgetting what he had been, as i he
had been born anew, is it not as much in practice or as regards the
efects which one can perceive, as i he were to be annihilated and a
King o China to be created at his place at the same instant? Which this
individual has no reason to desire.24
The suggestion is that nearly everyone would decline. The reasoning
would be that being rich and all-powerful would not be worth as much
as our personal (and intimate) memories. Who we are as individuals is
closely connected with our memories of the past. In other words, the
same body is not enough.
23 Locke, O Identity and Diversity, in An Essay . . . , Book II, Chapter XXVII, p. 250.
24 Gottried Wilhelm Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, translated by P. Lucas and L. Grint (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1953) , p. 145.
343
7 BEING HUMAN
Biography: John Locke Essay Concerning Human
(16321704) Understanding, published
in 1690 ater his return to
Locke was an English philosopher who let an England.
inuential legacy, especially in political philosophy
and epistemology. Locke was one o the frst
modern empiricists and
Locke studied philosophy and medicine in Oxord and a proponent o the mind as
spent some ohis lie working as a physician. While in tabula rasa, claiming that human
Oxord, Locke studied alongside prominent scientists beings are not born with innate ideas but are
ohis time and even struck a riendship with Newton, blank slates who learn rom their experiences and
which sparked his interest in epistemology. their senses.
Locke worked as a private physician and then an In 1690, Locke also published Two Treatises ofCivil
assistant or Lord Ashley, later Earl o Shatesbury, Government, his ground-breaking work o political
who became an important political fgure o philosophy, in which he established the principles
his time. This marked the beginning o Lockes o political liberalism, ocusing on reedom and the
involvement in politics. Locke developed his natural rights o people to resist abusive power.
political philosophy, advocating religious reedom
and criticizing absolute monarchy, until his ideas Under the new government and political system,
were deemed too radical and he had to spend six Locke was able to resume his public activities and
years in exile in Holland between 1682 and 1688. career, and carried on writing philosophical and
During that time, Locke worked on his amous political works until his death in 1704.
Criticisms o Lockes theory o personal identity
The contemporary American philosopher John Perry claries Lockes
statement that as ar as this consciousness can be extended backwards
to any past action or thought, so ar reaches the identity o that person
in the ollowing way:
Locke must mean something like this: Any experience I can
remember being refectively aware o, is mine, i.e., one that
happened to me. Thus the distinction between knowing o present
experiences by our ve external senses and knowing o them by
our sixth inner sense is carried over into memory; all and only
experiences I can remember having been aware o in this latter way
were mine.25
But Locke is demanding a lot o an individual that they remember
every memory that is theirs. Nothing can be orgotten.
The 1 8th-century Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid (1 71 01 796) noticed
an obvious obj ection to this account o personal identity. He observed:
25 John Perry, The Problem o Personal Identity, in John Perry (ed.) , Personal Identity (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University o Caliornia Press, 2008) , p. 14.
344
IDENTITY
[i] t is not my remembering any action o mine that makes me to be
the man who did it. This remembrance makes me to know assuredly
that I did it; but I might have done it, though I did not remember it.26
He regarded it as a mistake to treat memory as i it were just an
extension o consciousness, providing it with a degree o certainty that
experience suggests it does not deserve. Reid observed that memories
can be clear when they are frst established but as a person gets older
memories can begin to ade and eventually disappear.
Reids point is illustrated with the boysoldier-general example. Imagine
that a boy, a soldier, and a general are the same person but at dierent
times. The general remembers the soldiers experiences. The soldier
remembers the boys experiences. However, the general is too old to
remember the boys experiences. Lockes theory cannot give an adequate
explanation o this scenario.
Now, at this point it is worth abstracting the persons in this scenario to
help clariy the issue:
boy = A
soldier = B
general = C
According to the scenario, C is B and B is A. Since identity is transitive,
it ollows that C is A (C is the same person as A) .
In the scenario, however, C ( the general) cannot remember As ( the
boys) experiences. Lockes theory does not allow the claim to be made
that C is the same person as A. Hence, according to Locke, C both is and
is not the same person as A. As with all philosophical theories there is a
demand or them to be consistent. Clearly this theory is not consistent
when it is considered urther.
It is easy to reject the need or direct memories (as in the general
remembers the boy) and to settle or indirect memories. Indirect
memories are memories that the sel previously had but cannot recall in
the present. This allows the claim that C is B and that B is A thereore
C = A. B ut Lockes memory theory is reliant on direct memories, not
indirect memories, but as a modifcation it does seem to address the
criticism put orward by Reid.
The question o authenticity emerges with indirect memories but also
with direct memories. What about the case o alse memories? How do
you know which memories are authentic?
26 Thomas Reid, Of Identity, in John Perry (ed.) , Personal Identity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 2008) , p. 110; originally published as Of Memory in Reids Essays on the Intellectual Powers
ofMan (1785).
345
7 BEING HUMAN
The ollowing is a story o alse memories:
It was not until my 1 8th birthday did I realize learning a lot about lie, hard work, the rewards
that I had held a very signicant alse memory o persistent application, and so on. I made
as an authentic memory. O n the wall o my the observation that when little I had had the
parents house had been a photo o a group o courage and thereore belie in mysel to jump
boys in the backyard. In that photo was a boy rom a large pile o dirt into a small pool o water.
jumping o a very large pile o dirt into a small, I recalled how I had used that experience to do
plastic paddling pool. I always thought that boy other challenging things in my lie.
had been me (why else would my parents have
had it on their wall?) . Aterwards my mother came up to me and
thanked me or the acknowledgement and the
I gave a speech on my 1 8th birthday, thanking stories. She also quietly pointed out that the
my parents or the exciting lie I had had, moving picture was not o me. I had been too scared to
around requently, helping my dad build or go up to the top o the pile o dirt so I had come
renovate house ater house and in the process inside the house crying.
A response to the issue o alse memories might be to claim that the
memories had to happen to me. However, as should be clear when
refecting on the story above, how do I know that these memories
actually happened to me? This is called the circularity objection.
I have to know whether or not the memories are alse beore I can
know which memories are alse.
Shoemaker has responded to this issue by introducing the concept o
a quasi-memory. This type o memory involved an experience that
met the ollowing criteria:
1. That we seem to remember
2. That somebody actually had
3. That is caused by an actual experience.
This is a rather technical response to the issue. However, it does raise the
issue o identity without necessarily having a strong denition o the sel
the location or memory. The last condition is designed to ensure that it is
not a alse memory. However, as Perry observed, how do you know that
it was caused by an actual event? His concern is that the causal theory o
memory leads to an assumption o a sel, which is a conclusion that the
memory theory is supposed to be designed to avoid.
Butler and the circularity issue
Joseph B utler ( 1 692 1 75 2 ) , the 1 8th-century English philosopher,
highlighted the circularity issue in response to Locke:
[o] ne should really think it sel-evident, that consciousness o
personal identity presupposes, and thereore cannot constitute
personal identity, any more than knowledge can constitute truth,
which it presupposes.27
27 Joseph Butler, O Personal Identity, in John Perry (ed.), Personal Identity (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o
Caliornia Press, 2008), p. 100; originally published as the frst dissertation to Butlers Analogy ofReligion (1736).
346
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Philosophy (Being Human) - Course Companion - Oxford 2014
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search