Final answer:
Darwinism does not negate personal accountability, considering the gene-culture interaction, social contract theory, and compatibilist philosophy. All of which allow for an understanding that human behavior, while influenced by genetics, includes cultural, social, and personal factors that contribute to the concept of accountability.
Step-by-step explanation:
The debate whether Darwinism implies that humans cannot be held accountable for their actions centers on various arguments, with a general consensus that Darwinism does not negate personal accountability. Firstly, taking a deterministic approach to evolution emphasizes that while behavior may have a genetic basis, this does not remove personal responsibility or free will. The concept of gene-culture interaction acknowledges that while genetics play a role in behavior, the influence of cultural factors can shape and modify these behaviors significantly. Additionally, social contract theory posits that humans agree on ethical norms and moral standards, which suggests that despite our biological tendencies, we have collectively agreed to be held accountable for our actions. It follows then that genetic determinism does not completely dictate behavior, as there are innate traits and patterns that can be influenced by environmental and social contexts. Moreover, the philosophical stance of compatibilism reconciles free will with deterministic views, allowing for accountability even in a determined world. The importance of responsibility is further endorsed by psychological findings that suggest the belief in determinism may increase immoral behavior, implying a societal need to uphold notions of free will for ethical conduct. In conclusion, while sociobiology posits a link between genes and behavior, the interaction with cultural factors, agreed moral standards, and philosophical interpretations of free will suggest that accountability remains an integral part of human society.