Bill Whittle’s essay is very long and no, I had to skim it, but the point is clear enough if not, unfortunately, cut by Bill’s Electric Razor, the same one Occam would have used had he not had a propensity for beards. As David’s Younger Brother and, hence, influenced by similar Social Origins, those being our Father and our Mother and our brothers Adam and Greg, who art in Pennsylvania and Florida, respectively, and a host of others, including many of the same drunk-ass English teachers in H.S. and Universitas, we present slightly different views. I think Bill Whittle’s essay was nice, but could have been stated simply:
1. Human behavior is the product of biological predispositions and socialization forces (though this term is in vogue it is also Vague, it refers to “society’s influences”). So far, the evidence points to socialization forces, rather than biological predispositions, as the primary factor on which we base our repetoire of social behaviors. For a contrary view, look-up sociobiology.
2. As such, social forces have an enormous impact on what we do, say, and think. Humans are not robots. However, Social Origins make certain behavior more probable.
3. Responsibility is a moral issue. Bill Whittle commits the is/ought fallacy. He confuses what “is” for what “ought.” If you try to explain human behavior without moralizing, then you are saying what human behavior “is.” If you try to moralize, you are saying what human behavior “ought” to be.
4. This is what “is”: Humans are heavily influenced by social forces. This is what “ought” to be: Humans take resposibility for their actions, even though social forces create a greater probability that they will act in one way and not another.
And that’s what David’s Younger Brother feels about that kind of thing there.