There was one point that I think I had to point out in terms of disagreeing with the author from this week’s reading. To begin with the task of trying to explain the concept of human values in any limited space is difficult, so to fault the author for that would be incorrect. I do think that the use of anecdotal evidence in support of his position is the incorrect thing to be doing. In the section discussing inherited, or genetic, instincts in relation to values the author states evidence of ritual suicide and celibacy as proof against genetic instincts causing values. The issue that I had with this practice, is first that anecdotal evidence should not be to make a point, and second that simply because they chose to live in these ways does not mean that they did not value those genetic instincts. Taking the Tibetan celibacy as the focal point, the author contends that the sexual drive cannot be a genetically driven value because if it were then it would be universal, and these cases in Tibet would not happen. I think that this is an incorrect assumption that is being made. To begin with, these people are such a small case that it does not disprove the concept of genetic influence for the human species as a whole. More importantly for this discussion, even if the people in Tibet chose celibacy, it does not mean that they did not have that same sexual desires value that is genetically driven in many other cultures. Instead, it simply means that they valued something over that sexual desire, what that other value is I cannot say as for each person it would be different. Simply choosing to not do something does not mean that someone does not still have some values about it. All that it means is that the action that they did chose, in this case celibacy, was more important to them.