Sharon Street’s article, Does Anything Really Matter or Did We Just Evolve to Think So? raises crucial questions about the origins of personal and societal biases or beliefs that influence the perception of events. People often undoubtedly rely on facts they learned through life and refused to analyze the genealogy of that knowledge (Street, 2015). Indeed, Street (2015) states that “not only do we think these adjustments in belief would take place; we think they should take place” (p. 686). This paper aims to study the author’s arguments and generate two objections to the article’s detailed analysis.
The article emphasizes that many people’s beliefs are tied to the emotional aspect of a person. The biases, according to Street (2015), have been formed “because the mindless process of evolution by natural selection shaped us that way” (p. 685). Thus, humanity’s most evaluative tendencies that make them determine what is good or bad are the outcomes of the behaviors for survival. Street argues that the demand for maintaining these approaches might be decreased in the modern world and raises the question of whether people should assess the origins of their beliefs before relying on them.
The author supports the thesis by explaining how individuals form general beliefs with the principle of undermining versus vindicating genealogy. Street (2015) claims that “one must assess the rational significance of the genealogical information to understand what counts as a good reason for the belief” (p. 687). Further statements reveal that the values of our society and specific individuals can be mind-dependent – developed by a person based on their experience, or mind-independent, meaning unconsciously established in one’s mind. Consequently, Street (2015) extends a question about the beliefs “are things valuable ultimately because we value them, or are at least some things valuable in a way that is robustly independent of our valuing them?” (p. 690). The author argues that the evolutionary forces formed what we believe is good or bad, therefore humanity often acts mind-independently in their assumptions.
The examples given in the article support the statement that most people are unaware of the origins and genealogy of their beliefs and the reasons why some actions are considered good or bad. Street (2015) claims that “to conclude that we are unreliable about the evaluative truth would be to accept global evaluative skepticism in the sense of a conviction that one has no idea how to live” (p. 691). The author argues that modern societies and philosophers should not re-evaluate the value of the beliefs or biases but revise the initial conception of the subject matter.
The objections to Street’s thesis can be formed based on the general knowledge of individuals’ cognition and perception of society and on a philosophical determination of epistemology. Thus, the first counterargument to the article’s statements is the cruciality of humanity’s survival mechanisms throughout its entire existence. Street might be right in the concept that evaluative tendencies of marking actions as good or bad impacted natural selection, however, the professor did not highlight that they still help survive. Evolution taught human bodies to digest various types of food, live in different climate conditions, and belong to a group as it is meant to be for the species.
The approach of giving matter to anything, consciously or not, is necessary for societies to be formed and exist. Humans are the species seriously dependent on belonging to a particular group, and general beliefs about good or bad can unite and help assess if it is dangerous to accept someone into a community or not. Indeed, if all individuals would implement rationality and make all their evaluations mind-dependent, the societies would be disrupted because of everyone’s behavior’s unpredictability.
The question of evaluative tendencies has been raised in literature and philosophy to understand how the beliefs about the good and bad shape a person and society. For example, in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, the main character decided to check if the norms that mind-independently existed are correct or not. The young man ended up murdering the innocent woman, and such an is unacceptable for any society as it threatens people’s lives.
The article’s author could respond to the given objection by arguing that the society and its values developed within history and the oldest notions might be somewhat more disruptive than helpful. Street mentioned that today there is enough knowledge to notice and divide human reactions as natural, cognitive, or unconscious (Street, 2015). Thus, assuming that a specific value is true would be beneficial for modern society to continue its development (Street, 2015). Although the response to the objection is reasonable, it does not consider the strength of human survival attitudes that cannot be easily switched even if the mindsets would begin to change.
The second objection is that the epistemological understanding of knowledge has philosophical origins based on humanity’s experience of questioning their existence and other events that cannot be rationally explained. Moreover, there is no particular strategy to study the epistemology of human evaluative tendencies. Today, global evaluative skepticism helps solid social norms influence people’s lives, forcing them to adjust to societal needs. Street could respond to this objection by arguing that modern people need to revise the conception of the subject matter. Philosophical studies tend to develop, therefore the revision of the initial apprehension might lead epistemology to progress and to discover the novel knowledge perception approaches. While the counterargument is considerable, it is still crucial to address that knowledge of the values’ origins would not instantly influence people’s attitudes towards separating good from bad.
Street’s article reveals that humanity tends to be unaware of the origins of the evaluative beliefs that influence the perception of what is right or wrong. Professor argues that people need to question if their understanding of the values has been developed by them or unconsciously established due to the evolutionary algorithms for natural selection. The article emphasizes the rational significance of the genealogical information of any belief because its origins might influence an individual’s perception of it. The first objection is that natural selection and survival mechanisms are still impacting humans’ lives as species and as a society. The second objection is that epistemology does not provide an ultimate response to how people must perceive the origins of their values. While both counterarguments can be responded to by the facts from the article, they still question the initial demand in revising the conception of evaluation tendencies.
Reference
Street, S. (2015). Does anything really matter or did we just evolve to think so?. The Norton Introduction to Philosophy, 685-695.