Final answer:
Franz Joseph Gall proposed that behavioral propensities can be linked to the shape and size of the skull, influencing ideas on whether such natural tendencies should or shouldn't be developed. Ethical considerations from philosophers like Aristotle and Hume, and psychological and sociological perspectives from Kohlberg and Durkheim provide insights into the formation of character and behavior.
Step-by-step explanation:
Gall, a proponent of phrenology, argued that the propensity to behave in a certain way could be determined by the shape and size of different parts of the skull. He believed that the brain is the organ of the mind, and specific brain areas correspond to certain character traits or intellectual abilities, implicitly suggesting that individuals may have a natural inclination towards specific behaviors or talents. Considering this, when examining if natural propensities should be developed, it's imperative to address the ethical implications of leveraging such tendencies. Philosophers like Aristotle argue that through habituation, individuals develop virtues or vices it's the actions we undertake, and the habits we form, that shape our character. On the other hand, moral philosophers such as Hume highlight that morality is grounded in sentiment rather than derivable facts, challenging the notion that certain behaviors are inherently good and should be cultivated. Moreover, psychological theories by Kohlberg suggest that the process of deciding right from wrong is intrinsically linked to the reasoning behind our moral judgments, rather than outright propensities, while sociological perspectives from Durkheim indicate that societal structures and social facts are instrumental in shaping behavior, suggesting that behavioral propensity is complex and multifaceted.