What Defines a Human Being? : The Biological Approach

Defined generally in seminar as rights that are so basic that they cannot be taken away, human rights are indisputable regardless of what a person has done. Significant problems arise when one is forced to define the parameters of a human being. The discussion in seminar at one point delved into the most basic scientific definition of a human. This entails living organisms with an extremely similar DNA structure. In spite of this, chimpanzees share 94% of the human DNA sequence and 99% of DNA that is actually transcripted. Many genetic puzzles exist under these restraints. Individuals with extra sex chromosomes or with translocated genes exhibit significant genetic differences from the “standard” human being. The natural direction is to turn to a phylogenetic tree. Humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor some six million years ago. The human “species” can be defined as organisms which are born to other humans and can only produce viable offspring with other humans. Sterile individuals would still be humans since they have not “evolved” to the point of being classified as another species.

Before the world became flat again through globalization, it can be argued that different isolated human cultures would ultimately usher in different species as they became adapted to their specific environment. For example, humans who have descended from African heritage have better survival rates when afflicted by malaria because of their genetics; moreover, certain types of traits are more prevalent in different cultures. This however would have taken millions of years. Biology theories can offer several hypotheses for human behavior and interactions over history; however, it is crucial to note that they fail to offer anything of moral value.

Evolutionists contend that the ultimate goal of an organism is to propagate genetic material. Made famous by Darwin, the theory of natural selection proposes that the most successfully adapted traits to specific environments will prevail, leading to their proliferation in future generations. To that end, organisms exercise fitness when their genes are passed to the next generation. Richard Dawkins, a contentious evolutionary biologist and vocal atheist, updated this theory in his book The Selfish Gene. He basically contends that the genes, or replicators, determine the actions of an organism, or vehicle, to such a degree that the most “successful” genes are the ones which act primarily in the interest of proliferation with little or no resistance from the vehicle. This theory helps deal with the notion of altruistic sacrifice; a mother sacrificing herself in order to save child preserves one of the closest genetic organisms to herself. It is a difficult theory to comprehend without attributing “semi-consciousness” to genes such as “selfishness” but this is the easiest way to put into terms why the most successful genes are the ones that make it to the next generation.

Despite the callousness of the theory, it can provide some answers to observed phenomena. For example, a mother is far more likely to save her own child over a complete stranger. This can be attributed to the fact that the daughter is of a far more genetic similarity and therefore the replicator acts in such a way to preserve its genetic identity. Interestingly, aging can also be explained as the replicator terminating the vehicle in order to alleviate resource competition for the young that also carry similar replicators. Since there are no morals, just the omnipresent law of replication of the closest genetic material, this theory can explain more sinister actions like racism or genocide as genes come in competition for resources with other more distantly related genes.

The difficulty in defining human beings happens at the fringes of the life spectrum. The Supreme Court definition best encapsulates the attempts in seminar to describe a human being as an organism which everyone would say, “I know it when I see it.” Could this be a function of the replicator, or genetic material, in all humans that acknowledges a greater genetic similarity to other humans over animals? Humans are far more likely to protect other human beings through legislation or action than animals. Those genes would also drive a human being to protect something with the potential to pass on the genes, such as a child, over the elderly, who can no longer reproduce. This can help explain why humans feel more at ease over the death of the elderly rather than the death of a child. It also would cause one to develop an affinity for whatever human beings shared the most similarities to the individual (with the exception of avoiding inbreeding depression). It describes something that can be best described by the word instinctual. It could also be a component of Hume’s “Natural Justice.”

After reading the evolutionist approach, one should note that there are no morals, no emotions, and no considerations to diversity: the sole motivating force is the replication of one’s genetic material. According to this theory, a human being’s only aim should be to propagate his or her genes and eliminate any obstacles to that end. Dawkins argues that at some point, humans being the example, an organism becomes intelligent enough to divorce its own interests from its genetic material. At this point, what a philosopher like Kant would call rational capacity, human beings can employ reason to define some sort of human rights. This can stem from reason, social contract, or another factor but something that human beings have come to realize as uniquely human. The ability of a human to recognize the difference in its aims from those of its genetic code allows one to generate some system of norms that protect human life regardless of genetic similarity.