| This paper makes use of an essay by David Hull, entitled 'On Human Nature,' to explore the issue of whether it is reasonable to posit the existence of a human nature and whether such a notion is conducive to ethical practice. Part of a satisfactory answer to these questions involves coming to terms with what can be deduced from the science of biology. Hull's essay is particularly appropriate in this regard, as his primary focus is to present what professional biologists would say on these matters. On the first issue mentioned, Hull's stance is that biology does not lend any scientific support to the notion. As for the second issue, Hull claims that even if human nature did exist it is, ultimately, not of any ethical significance. The thesis of this paper is that Hull is wrong on both counts. |
