Biological Approach | PY1 PY1 | Model answers for biological approach | Sumi Prasobh AS Level | 1a) Outline two assumptions of the biological approach (4 marks) One assumption of the biological approach is that our personalities and behaviors are biologically determined. Lab research found that we’re a product of our brain structure. The balance of neurotransmitters, such as dopamine and adrenaline has directly been found to affect our mood, thoughts and personalities. For example Hans Selye found that both humans and animals are biologically determined to react in the same predictable way to the threat of a stressor for aiding survival. Another assumption is that certain regions of the brain determine certain behaviors.
The nature-nurture debate is all about whether genetics (nature) or our environment (nurture) is responsible for our behaviour and development. Early theorists believed that our personality, intellect, behaviour and gender role were determined by our genes and therefore could not be changed. But an increasing amount of evidence has proved these theorists wrong, and our development as an individual is learnt through the environment we live in. One developmental stage of an individual that psychologists have the nature-nurture debate about is the intelligence stage. The nature side of that intelligence is present at birth and we already have a set amount of intelligence.
Charles Darwin had similar ideas, but about biological evolution, emphasizing the importance of just conflict and struggle. Both views looked at an
The moral argument is that scientists are killing fetuses to improve the medical condition of living patients. I think that this argument is completely absurd. I think that if a person wants to donate an embryo for this type of research, it should be left up to them. My way of thinking on this issue is very nonconsequentialist which insist that consequences, effects or outcomes are irrelevant: morality is about doing what is right as a matter of principle, regardless of consequences. That means you do the right thing no matter what happens (Thiroux).
EVOLUTION REVEALS THE TRUTHS Evolution is a debatable issue and it will be argued for many years, because it is in contradiction with creationism. Evolution explains that all living creatures come from same ancestors and evolutionary change leads to new species. These species should be the fittest for the surroundings to survive and they continue to mutate. It is life or death struggle. However, creationism says that the world and living things was created by God.
Senator Barbara Boxer United States Senate Washington DC, 20510 Dear Senator Boxer, Hi, I am Marissa and I am a student at Warren high school and I strongly believe that reproductive cloning is wrong. I am against reproductive cloning because it can lead to an end of our humanity. Human beings are so unique and to copy an individual is devaluing to the original creation of a human. We are not a product to be reproduced we are imperfectly divine creations that need to remain with those expectations of humanity. Reproductive cloning in my beliefs is just not morally right.
Nature vs. Nurture Scientists believe that traits such as hair and eye colour are determined by specific genes encoded in each human cell. They now also believe abstract traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression and sexual orientation are also encoded in an individual’s DNA. This is known as the Nature theory, whereby it is the genetics and the characteristics that have been inherited from generations earlier that make the person behave the way they are. The Nurture theory however has a different approach to human behaviour, and although it does not completely discount genetic tendencies, the scientists studying this theory ultimately believe that genetics do not matter. They argue that our behavioural aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing.
Socio- biologists argue that biology, meaning our genetic make up; shapes the behavior of the individual and in turn also determines social in-equalities such as gender inequalities present in society. Socio- biologists believe that the sex a person is born, categorizes them into the way society will perceive and treat them, this theory is known as biological determinism(O’ Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2006). Socio- constructionists believe however that ‘gender is a social distinction between men and women (Germov & Poole, 2007) and you are not born a woman or a man but rather female or male and develop into either a woman or a man due to society and its structures .Social ideologies such as gender hierarchy, culture, order and institutions are said to contribute to gender inequality, not the sex of the person as thought by socio-biologists. Prior to the feminist movement in Australia in the 1970’s, the word ‘gender’ did not exist; there was very much a socio-biologists view present in society at this time. This meant there was great masses of gender inequality present in Australia, males and females role’s in society were given to them based on a whole range of other differences: ‘bodily strength and speed, physical skills (men have mechanical skills and women are good at homemaking work i.e.
Determinism is the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. In sociology, this relates to the idea that everything is previously determined by a particular factor, or that the outcome is influenced by an uncontrollable cause. Biological determinism argues that individual and group behaviour and social status are the inevitable result of biology – i.e. “Biology is destiny” (Germov & Poole, 2010, p.15). This paper gives several responses to the idea of genetic or biological determinism from the viewpoint of sociology.
This major debate stems from the opinion on whether or not it is morally sound to extract stem cells from embryos. Dr. Robert P. George of Princeton University and Dr. Patrick Lee of Franciscan University state in the EMBO Reports that the only difference in human life is “in degree of maturation, not in kind, between any of the stages from embryo, to fetus, infant, and so on” (George and Lee 1). Many people believe that even in the embryonic stage, there is life, and this theory can be used to prove that life indeed does begin at the embryonic stage. George and Lee write that: If, as we believe, human embryos are human beings who deserve the same basic respect we accord to human beings at later developmental stages, then research that involves deliberately dismembering embryonic humans in order to use their cells for the benefit of others is inherently wrong. Just as harvesting the organs of a living child for the benefit of others is immoral and illegal, so ‘disaggregating’ embryonic human beings should also be immoral and should be illegal—of course governments should therefore not fund such procedures.