Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
is self-centered and directed to seeking its own welfare. As Wolter further
remarks, “If at times we encounter what seems to be altruistic behavior
in the animal world, for instance, it is always a case where the 'nature'
or 'species' is favored at the expense of the individual. But nature, either
in its individual concretization or as a self-perpetuating species, must of
necessity seek its own perfection. Such is its supreme value and the ulti-
mate goal of all its loves.”
51
As Wolter interprets Duns Scotus here, when an individual entity or a
nature acts, it seeks its own good or what is to its advantage. This is not
cause for surprise for this is what a nature does, whether looked at as
an individual representative of the species or the species as a whole. The
affectio commodi drives the being “to seek his perfection and happiness
in all he does.”
52
What is significant about this perspective—particularly in the context
of the sociobiologists—is that for Duns Scotus, and indeed for the entire
classical philosophical tradition from Plato forward, seeking one's own
perfection is a
good.
It is “not some evil to be eradicated. For it too rep-
resents a God-given drive implanted in man's rational nature which leads
him to seek his true happiness.”
53
In fact, to ignore our perfection or give
it no standing in our actions is an act of injustice to oneself.
I maintain that what Wilson and Dawkins refer to as genetic selfish-
ness is what Duns Scotus labels the affectio commodi. The importance
of the Scotistic position is, on the one hand, that he too sees the same
kind of tendency present in human nature as do the sociobiologists, but
on the other hand, he, together with the entire philosophical tradition
up to that time, sees that behavior as a good because it achieves the per-
fection of the individual and the species. That is, the affectio commodi
is that dimension of human nature that leads us to seek our fulfillment
or perfection as a human. This affection is a good precisely because it
leads to our perfection.
There is, however, a critical difference between Duns Scotus and the
sociobiologists. For the sociobiologists, the behavior comes from evolu-
tionary success, whereas for Duns Scotus, the cause is the creative will
of God expressed in creation. Nonetheless, though the origin is quite dif-
ferent, the behavior is the same. Part of the difference surely lies in both
philosophical and theological frameworks. Yet another part of the dif-
ference is that Duns Scotus sees self-perfecting behavior as a good, while
