tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4506824135657894831..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Evolution, Altruism, and MoralityAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-41662306889561472652013-02-15T17:01:55.042-07:002013-02-15T17:01:55.042-07:00Indeed. My system is eclectic. I find Kant's p...Indeed. My system is eclectic. I find Kant's point as you do. Mine is similar to Carrier's goal theory. Google covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism. <br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848209397234371879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4063151227753751002013-02-12T08:05:43.222-07:002013-02-12T08:05:43.222-07:00David Pinsof
Yes, evolution can explain both the ...<b>David Pinsof</b><br /><br /><i>Yes, evolution can explain both the good and bad aspects of morality;</i><br /><br />But can evolution explain which are good and which are bad?<br /><br />Because THAT is what must be done to say that evolution accounts for morality. It means providing an account of "These are good - and here is why they are good. And those are bad - and here is why they are bad."<br /><br />If you cannot account for what we ought to praise or condemn, then you have not accounted for morality.<br /><br />Because those who claim that God accounts for morality is saying precisely that - that they CAN account for what what we ought to praise or condemn.<br /><br />And when I say that evolution cannot account for morality, I am saying that evolution is on the same footing as religion when it comes to morality. That NEITHER can account for what we ought to praise or condemn.<br /><br />If you cannot account for that, than you cannot account for morality. You are merely inventing "something else" that you can account for and calling it "morality".<br /><br />Which is like shooting at a barn, then painting a target around the hole.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9892603244577010802013-02-12T07:29:23.761-07:002013-02-12T07:29:23.761-07:00@Alonzo Fyfe
Yes, evolution can explain both the...@Alonzo Fyfe<br /> <br />Yes, evolution can explain both the good and bad aspects of morality; I was not trying to cherry pick the good aspects. In fact, your examples fit neatly into my content domains: tribal warfare fits under "loyalty to one's coalition" and the oppression of women fits under "regulating status hierarchies." Again, my argument is not that evolution can tell us what we ought to praise or condemn. My argument is that evolutionary psychology explains the specific texture of morality -- the way norms are conceptualized and acquired, the how nurture interacts with nature for moral change to occur, the specific categories of norms that crop up in all cultures, the emotions and intuitions that constitute moral cognition. My argument is that evolutionary psychology's explanatory power extends far beyond the fact that we are intentional agents with reward systems, and to say as much contradicts a wealth of evidence from the behavioral sciences.David Pinsofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07850730286000817916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67596397271696395212013-02-12T06:37:09.330-07:002013-02-12T06:37:09.330-07:00David Pinsof
What about other "content domai...<b>David Pinsof</b><br /><br />What about other "content domains" - the disposition to frm rival tribes and to treat tribal members better than non-tribal members - to g to war with, take from and enslave rival tribes, or to wipe them out entirely. Or to treat women as property, or the male disposition to rape.<br /><br />I would suspect that you are not using our common traits to determine moral content, but instead using moral content to determine which traits qualify to go on the list.<br /><br />You can't get from any item on ths list to moral content because, "We have evolved a disposition to kill those who have quality Q" to "Those with quality Q deserve to due," remains an invalid inference, ths inference has to be valud to go from evolved dispoition to moral content.<br /><br />However, we can go from mral content to an valuation - good or bad - of a disposition. Though if a dusposition is a product of evolution and unalleable - and bad - it qualifies as an illness rather than a moral failing, precisely because concepts of punishment and condemnation are only applicable to that which can be changed. <br /><br />Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-84279648945726668682013-02-11T13:32:57.282-07:002013-02-11T13:32:57.282-07:00There may be another portion of morality that evol...There may be another portion of morality that evolution can account for, aside from the fact that we are intentional agents with reward systems, and that is the actual content of moral systems. Moral systems cross-culturally contain norms about regulating status hierarchies, caring for the vulnerable, remaining loyal to one's coalition, dividing resources equitably, reciprocating kindness with kindness, punishing cruelty with cruelty, and safeguarding the community from contaminants (e.g. food taboos, purification rituals, etc.). A strong case can be made that these content domains were not discovered through rational deliberation about what desires we ought to promote or inhibit, but rather were inherited from our primate ancestors and have clear evolutionary functions that are consistent with evolutionary game theory. This isn't to say that these cross-culturally recurring content domains are good for us, that we ought to perpetuate them, or that their existence promotes good desires. My point, rather, is that evolutionary psychology contributes far more to our understanding of morality than the mere fact that we are intentional agents with reward systems. David Pinsofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07850730286000817916noreply@blogger.com