Human nature is the term used to refer to that which is conventionally accepted as that which is uniquely and distinctly human. While few deny the existence of such a quality, the origins and scope of this quality have yet to be definitively defined. The following essay will explain the relationship between two opposing arguments that delve into this topic by examining both: J. S. Mill's notion of the necessity of individuality, as presented in On Freedom, and; E. O. Wilson's theory that genes are the fundamental basis of all human actions, culminating in his notion of evolutionary ethics, as seen in Consilience. Ultimately, this essay will support the thesis that Mill's and Wilson's notions contradict each other by: examining the ideas of both authors; illustrating the dichotomy created by their comparison, and; providing commentary on the potential applicability of each. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayMill believes that individuality is the basis of human nature, thus suggesting that without individuality the distinctive characteristics of human beings would be lost. His argument is based on the fundamental premise that each person has the capacity to develop into a unique individual: “Human nature is not a machine to be built according to a model and intended to do exactly the work that has been prescribed for it, but a tree , which requires growth and development on all sides, according to the tendency of the internal forces that make it a living thing." (Mill, 56-57) He states that custom often oppresses this individuality and that it can be restrictive to the development of any society, stating that: “The despotism of custom is everywhere the permanent obstacle to human progress.” (Mill, 67) Mill's postulations finally lead him to state that: the cultivation of individuality is the best means of producing well-developed human beings (Mill, 61); genius -and genes- are the product of the promotion and development of individuality (Mill, 62), and; individualism is a prerequisite for the improvement of societies and human existence in general (Mill, 67). In conclusion Mill states that "it is the privilege and condition proper to a human being, having reached the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way". (Mill, 55) meaning that: unless the individuality of each human being – particularly with respect to thought and opinion – is embraced and developed, human nature will not flourish. In contrast, Wilson believes that human nature is a genetically determined phenomenon in which individuality plays no role. He introduces this theory by stating its alignment with the empiricist view (Wilson, 263), according to which: "[moral guidelines are] artifices of the mind." (Wilson, 260). Wilson explains the relevance of this opinion using the following premise: human nature is an essential quality of all human beings expressed through the behavior and attitudes of societies, which is manifested in a morally reasoned ethic (Wilson, 263). This premise, viewed in the context of empiricism, lends itself to the claim that ethics – the expression of human nature in behavior and moral standards – is determined by the genetic codes underlying the mind. Wilson develops this idea by arguing that the ethics of every society are dynamic and can change over time (Wilson, 274), this is the essence of his theory of evolutionary ethics. The logic of the theory can be understood in the following way: (A) every moral attitude depends on a genetic predisposition; (B) certain attitudes are more favored and those who possess them are more desirable in reproduction; (C) genescorresponding to the trends of these individuals become more prevalent in the population's gene pool, and; (D) subsequently changes the ethics of the population (Wilson, 274-280). Therefore, Wilson theorizes that the expression of human nature is limited by the gene pool of a population given time. The contrast between the two ideas is clear; while Mill apparently assumes infinite possibilities for human nature if it were allowed to develop and flourish through individuality, Wilson clearly believes that this phenomenon is limited and can only change gradually, in populations as a whole and never exclusively in individuals. However, some might suggest that the two ideas share the same origin; Both Mill and Wilson operate on the premise that human nature is a phenomenon of the human mind. So it can be inferred that their theories are fundamentally similar and reinforce, rather than contradict, each other. The appropriate response to this argument is simply to consider the operational definition that each author uses when considering the “human mind.” Mill considers the mind to be a tool used to understand circumstances and develop opinions, while he accepts that this "tool" is the product of genetic codes - an emergent property - he argues that the unique influences and experiences that each person faces causes each of they possess a different mind. Wilson, however, suggests that the mind is the result of the direct translation of any individual's genetic code, thus implying that it will remain immutable throughout life, any apparent discrepancy being simply due to varying circumstances. This, in the context of the “group mind” proposed by Wilson (Wilson, 268), implies that the human mind is not a unique product and that rather it is a predetermined and predictable result of extremely specific components. Ultimately Mill and Wilson have fundamentally different views regarding the quality, expression, and potential of human nature. The resulting relationship between their ideas is one of direct contradiction. Having established that the relationship between these two ideas is contradictory, one must attempt to examine which, if either, is the most correct in providing insight into the elusive qualities of the human being. nature. This can be done by examining the implications of each idea. Mill's notion alludes to infinite possibilities, opportunities for perpetual growth, and the existence of unique opinions. However, Wilson's theory implies few predetermined options of expression, gradual growth or change only over long periods of time, and the prevalence of shared opinions. The applicability of the proposed models is certainly questionable. However, I argue that, in reality, Mill's notion is of much greater precision and relevance. Consider, for example, the contrasts between mannerisms and behaviors within any social group: the restless ones juxtaposed with the immobile ones, the clean ones with the messy ones, the introverted ones with the extroverted ones. With such diversity of behavior, such opportunity for expression and difference, it cannot feasibly be said that the inheritance of genes condemns a population to tend toward homogeneity. Furthermore, Wilson's perspective that changes in a population's moral beliefs – in its ethical code – occur only gradually “across generations” (Wilson, 280) is stated without considering a wide range of examples. An example of this is the technological revolution of the 21st century: in less than a decade most of the ethical codes of most Western countries have changed radically and, perhaps, irreversibly; standards of social conduct are now radically changed, the nature of education and the workplace is transformed in essence., 1999.