tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post7707856286121141386..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Relationship Between Evolution and MoralityAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9426221847046001812009-04-06T04:48:00.000-06:002009-04-06T04:48:00.000-06:00AnonymousThe Euthyphro argument can be asked of mo...Anonymous<BR/><BR/>The Euthyphro argument can be asked of most moral systems. How the question is dealt with shows whether it is a dilemma or not.<BR/><BR/>You have given an tentative answer to the Euthyphro argument with respect to gene-based morality.<BR/><BR/>You said <B>"Survival is always the ultimate (indeed, only) biological good"</B> The Euthryphro arguments makes it explicit to question how this relates to moral good. You can only answer the argument your way by <I>assuming</I> that moral good= biological good (note also that your formulation is not quite correct as it is really to do with successful differential reproduction). However it is not enough to assume or stipulate this, you need to empirically show this to be the case. I do not believe that you can but you can try.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44847222479117183212009-04-06T00:02:00.000-06:002009-04-06T00:02:00.000-06:00The Euthyphro dilemma does not apply to evolutiona...The Euthyphro dilemma does not apply to evolutionary morality. Morality is loved by the genes because it promotes survival. End of story. There's no chicken-and-egg problem. Survival is always the ultimate (indeed, only) biological good, and never needs to be defined in terms of another higher purpose. The inverted phrase ("Morality promotes survival because it is loved by the genes") is clearly absurd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74288807523831765492009-02-17T07:10:00.000-07:002009-02-17T07:10:00.000-07:00salazarMea culpa.I know that I tend to switch back...<B>salazar</B><BR/><BR/>Mea culpa.<BR/><BR/>I know that I tend to switch back and forth between "other desires" and "desires of others" as if they are interchangable.<BR/><BR/>There is a difference. "Other desires" = "desires of others + other desires of self."<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, it makes little difference in the final calculation. The result that we get from 6.5 billion people is not going to be substantially different from the result we get from the desires of 6.5 billion people + 1.<BR/><BR/>Technically speaking, there is no reason to exclude one's own other desires from the calculation. Practically speaking, it makes little difference.<BR/><BR/>Still, I really should try to be more technically correctAlonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-13970061084788331062009-02-17T06:52:00.000-07:002009-02-17T06:52:00.000-07:00I am confused by the disparity of expressions that...I am confused by the disparity of expressions that are used interchangeably and that to me, apparently, do not have the same meaning.<BR/><BR/>The expressions are "that tend to fulfill the desires of others" and "tend to fulfill other desires" (not other's desires, which would make the expressions equivalent.)<BR/><BR/>So I ask, do they mean the same or not? And if they do, then you are really saying that morality is about me living as a sort of tool for other people's desires, which sounds like altruism, where my standard of value is other's life instead of my own.<BR/><BR/>So I'd just like to understand how to really read "fulfill other desires", because I never ever read that as if meaning "fulfill the desires of others"<BR/><BR/>Thank you :)Salazarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02179151722384969677noreply@blogger.com