Beyond Freedom and Dignity

In the fourteenth chapter of his utopian novel <Walden Two>, Skinner expresses his stance regarding the great potential of scientific measures in building a better-developed utopian society. Skinner, who proposed his conceptions of human behavior through the voice of T.E. Frazier, believes by executing human subject research – in this case child – to formulate the affectionate and tolerant natures of individuals, which are necessary conditions to fulfill an ideal society. Replies made by Augustine Castle to some of Frazier’s earlier questions provide with sufficient evidence that the subjects [children] indeed learn to behavior appropriately to resolve the predicaments they face (e.g. Getting the lollipop out of sight as soon as possible, tolerating hunger in front of boiling soup) Given that the result is successful, which is the case here, I concur with Mr. Skinner that it is justifiable to use scientific methods to benefit the society. We can consider it to be a part of early childhood education.
          However, exclamations made by Castle towards the end of the chapter clearly depicts the conflicts of moral issues between the scientist and general public in regard with the weight of free will and human dignity. It is a burden placed upon the scientist to prove that consequences clearly outweigh the potential controversies that may be raised during the process of scientific protocol. As ironic as it seems, although Frazier and Simmons – in reality Skinner – are advocating for their so-called “cultural engineering” in order to benefit the future society, the society is reluctant of following a scientific manipulations of human traits because it believes the innate nature of a human being needs to be respected as its original state.
           Personally, I am in favor of Skinner’s cultural engineering, although I am not sure I would sustain my view toward this issue if what Skinner tried to imply were to force this to every newborn kids. First, this protocol apparently has no significant effects over formulation of individuality whatsoever, because for citizens of today’s society WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE already have common reactions to some frustrations they face in their life, and these do not, by any means, hinder their acquisition of individuality. Second, this protocol violates neither the free will nor the human dignity, because it depends on the subjects whether to engage in the experiment. Because the experiment is not forced upon the subjects, it doesn’t violate their free will. And this actually boosts their dignity in a sense, because they learn to take full responsibility for the choices they make. For these reasons, I believe Skinner’s stance is justifiable.
           Lastly, although I do believe in Skinner’s cultural engineering, I still think there should be an animal study of the similar model that precedes the human subject research. Taking into account that it is not too hard to come up with operational definitions of same traits for animal subjects, the results must be verified with rodents before they are applied to human subjects.