Pfeifer 1

Evan Pfeifer
Mr. Whitaker
PHIL 1001-119
15 November 2016
Evolution and Human Nature
Why do humans act the way they do? The answer lies in a mixture of evolutionary
tendencies and human knowledge and reason, or rather, how does evolution affect human nature?
Evolution must first be defined. In this argument, evolution is the selection of an individual who
is born with a specific trait, who then has a better chance of surviving to reproduce offspring who
will also have that trait. These traits often help the individual to better deal with the problems of
the environment that he or she is in and, over time, lead to specific behavior patterns that play a
part in everyday human nature, such as caution or fright. These evolutionary traits often coincide
with human nature.
Human nature can be defined as why humans act in various ways. This definition
concerns emotions, behaviors, and social tendencies as well as phenomena such as fear,
suspicion, and discrimination - all of which are typically regarding other humans. A comparison
of evolutionary behavior patterns and the social tendencies of humans shows that the two are
closely related, but to what degree? The controversy in philosophy is how much or little
evolution affects human nature, which then affects daily human life. My answer, based on
Darwin and Macherys texts, is that evolution forms a broad baseline for how humans behave,
which gives people a disposition on how to act towards day to day scenarios.
Darwin argues that there are no fundamental differences between humans and other
animals. He explains this by comparing the following traits: Curiosity ImitationAttention

Pfeifer 2
MemoryImagination Reason Progressive improvement Tools and weapons used
by animals Language Self-consciousness Sense of beauty Belief in God, spiritual
agencies, superstitions (Darwin, 34). To state it briefly, Darwin believes that there is no
difference in fundamental thought processes or reasoning; the only reason humans are more
civilized is the degree to which members of the species comprehend these phenomena. For
example, humans may have an extremely complex language when compared to apes, but apes
howls serve their purpose in their social groups, just as humanitys languages serve a purpose in
human society, and therefore are fundamentally the same. This distinction relates to Machery by
suggesting that there is no fundamental difference, and therefore human qualities can be attained
by any species.
Machery uses two notions to define human nature. The first is the essentialist notion,
which states that humans have a specific set of traits that make them human (Machery, 65).
Examples for this notion include humor and the knowledge of death. The second notion is the
nomological notion, which states that humans tend to have a set of properties, given by evolution
(Machery, 65), which includes being bipedal and greatly investing in children. Machery then
references Hull, who argues against the two notions. Hull denies that humans share a set of
properties that are only possessed by humans, but proposes that humans, and other animals, are
human if they possess a sufficient number of those properties because it is unlikely that humans
all share a definitive trait (Machery, 67). This solidifies Darwins claim that humans have no
fundamental differences because it allows other animals to be considered human if they have a
sufficient number of traits, and thus act humanely if they display those traits.
Darwins position on evolution is strong because he states that animals resemble humans
to a degree (Darwin, 35). This gives readers a reason to believe him, because it is logically

Pfeifer 3
sound: animals employ human traits to a certain degree. Had Darwin not included that
distinction, nobody would believe that an animal can act like a human. Furthermore, he gives
appropriate, detailed examples that support his claims. Macherys strength is that he
acknowledges the opposition and then refutes them. By quoting Hull, Machery gives his
argument more leniency, like Darwin mentioning the degree. By assimilating Hull into his
argument, he makes his seem stronger because he refuted the opposition.
It is possible for an animal to act humanely, because the qualities that humans show are
generic. Consider Darwins example about the female baboon that adopted orphaned monkeys
and other animals (Darwin, 41). This, among other traits, would indicate that this baboon is
displaying human nature, by Macherys nomological definition. In regards to the baboon, there is
no fundamental difference between her and humans. Considering that this baboon is capable of
displaying human nature, one can conclude human nature is a simple and generic collection of
traits that humans have branded as their own. Therefore, acting humanely is open to all types of
animals who display any of Darwins concepts. If all animals can act human, then the
predisposition to care for orphans must be an evolutionary trait that was gained through a
common ancestor, likely thousands of years ago, and therefore nothing meriting special
superiority.
Darwin would agree with my claim because he believes that there is no fundamental
difference between animals and humans, just as I am suggesting. Machery would also agree,
because his nomological notion states that an animal, including humans, can be human if it
possesses human traits. By Darwins definition, all animals possess human traits - to a degree.
If Machery and Darwin are considered together, then Machery is saying that animals can display
human traits. If I am right, it would only solidify their positions because I am agreeing with them

Pfeifer 4
and not changing their viewpoints. Ultimately, humans show no fundamental difference in
behavior and therefore are no different from the animals they evolved alongside.
Works Cited
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. New York: Modern Library, 1859.
Machery, Edouard. A Plea for Human Nature. 3rd ed. Vol. 21. San Diego, CA: Philosophical
Psychology, 2008.