Human Nature After Darwin is an original investigation of the implications of Darwinism for our understanding of ourselves and our situation. It casts new light on current Darwinian controversies, also providing an introduction to philosophical reasoning and a range of philosophical problems. Janet Radcliffe Richards claims that many current battles about Darwinism are based on mistaken assumptions about the implications of the rival views. Her analysis of these implications provides a much-needed guide to the fundamentals of Darwinism and the so-called Darwin wars, as well as providing a set of philosophical techniques relevant to wide areas of moral and political debate. The lucid presentation makes the book an ideal introduction to both philosophy and Darwinism as well as a substantive contribution to topics of intense current controversy. It will be of interest to students of philosophy, science and the social sciences, and critical thinking.
An excellent book for students new to philosophy and/or evolutionary biology. Even for people well-versed in these fields, the book does a great job of highlighting common errors in thinking about the relationship between science and ethics. Each chapter ends with a set of exercises, which I greatly valued.
uuuuugh i geek out about this stuff so much. I've always had my own jerry-rigged theories of free will or lack thereof, and have never found much that talks to the points I question. Richards does, and because this is half a textbook on how to parse things out philosophically, with such precise and logical argument there is no hint of agenda except to understand honestly. The threats that the idea of our selves as gene-machines pose really aren't as bad as we make them out to be, or really the ideas of ultra-darwinism have no worse implications for free will or determinism than do those of creationism or intelligent design. Richards calmly goes through the arguments using strict philosophical methodology, which can get a little dry at parts when you're not trying to learn philosophical argumentation, but it does give me confidence that the arguments are sound.