Hence, humans are capable of moral behavior without guidance, so no external being ought to control human lifestyle. However, Ishmael himself states that humans are not born inherently evil, contradicting his entire position. But if man is automatically deemed fallen whenever he tries to gain knowledge, it must mean that he is inherently flawed in some way. Ishmael then tries to convince the reader that a human “…was innocent until he discovered the difference between good and evil” (183). Even after eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, the gods still had to engage in picking-and-choosing, which is neither impartial nor moral. However, the lion and deer dilemma clearly illustrates how the gods are in fact subject to human error. He assumes that natural workings were formed by the gods, and therefore the “…law itself is beyond argument” (144). However, for these regulations to be just, they must have been enacted by omniscient, infallible, and moral beings. Quinn first tries to evaluate the purpose of human existence by considering which external beings ought to regulate human behavior. Although it raises important questions about human duty, its idolizing of Leaver culture and gods, its misinterpretation of natural law, its black-and-white generalizations about human nature, and its unrelenting focus on the community as opposed to individuals makes it ill-suited to offer even basic answers about the role of humans in the world. The novel questions the very nature of human existence and reevaluates what we've done wrong and what we ought to do.

Human society, in his view, has embarked on a selfish, destructive journey toward global hegemony. In Ishmael, Daniel Quinn uses the relationship between a human and a gorilla as a vehicle to denounce the human condition.

Ishmael daniel quinn review