No Purpose

 "Evolution is amoral and without purpose, that doesn't mean that the products of evolution, namely ourselves, are selfish, or that we are amoral and without purpose." 

This quote is from The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. I completely agree with the first half of this statement. Evolution has no special meaning, specifically when talking about Homo Sapiens or any other species for that matter. Other than to pass on successful genes to their offspring, evolution has no morals or ulterior purposes that guide it. Humans have the cognitive ability to weight consequences of their actions and decided whether or not that action is acceptable for them to do. Thus, by this definition, humans do have ingrained morals due to social pressures they grow up with all of their lives. The thing I have difficulty agreeing with is that humans have a purpose. I say this because I feel that it needs to be further prefaced. I agree that like all other species, we are the product of evolution and do not inherently have a purpose other than to exist and procreate. However, this does not mean that individuals cannot determine a purpose for themselves. Due to our cognitive ability, we are completely capable of deciding what we place value on and do so on a daily basis. Values and beliefs are dependent on one's experiences and upbringing, and while their behavior is partially dependent on these learned opinions, genetics play an important role as well.

The source of these values for me are derived from my rather pragmatic, existentialist view of the world. The quote speaks to me, individually, because the experiences I have had in the past have led me to the realization that each person determines what is morally sound to themselves. Those morals and values are influenced by multiple inputs, and it is ridiculous to pin the responsibility to any single entity. This article frustrates me because it is looks at two extremes and nothing in between, either a "blank slate" or one that has already been defined by the Heavenly Father or genetics. Yet, why not approach things with empirical ideals brought about by science and society? To go along with the analogy, the Blank Slate is not completely blank. It has faint blue lines that guide the choices and decisions that humans make, and those faint blue lines were put there in part by both nature and nurture.

Pinker and I are acknowledging both sides of the science wars, and I think we are both saying that culture and science should have a seat a the table. The stakes are high, because whichever side 'wins' will be the governing influence in the political world. Therefore, by deciding which "better" determines political and social problems, scientific realism or postmodernism, we are essentially choosing the method as to how our future politics and policies should be decided.