Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
1. how exactly is the attempt to ground ethics in one or another version of "the genetic record" not an expression of the same impulse that would cause a religious person to try to ground them in a god?
|
Presumably, one could use evolutionary theory to generate testable hypotheses about patterns of morality that we should expect to see universally or patterns influenced by the ability to accumulate resources, sex, sex ratio, age, etc. The existence of such patterns would lend support to particular evolutionary accounts of morality. A lack of support would suggest that such accounts are incorrect. From my perspective, the goal of such research is to understand the complexities of human morality. The goal is not to say "Yay! It's natural!" and leave it at that. Evolutionary theory (for me) is a tool, not something to be proven.
Some "natural" accounts, maybe some of those outlined on TFP, especially those that don't generate any testable predictions, might qualify as "just so" stories a la Rudyard Kipling.
A separate, but related issue that you allude to is this idea that "if it is natural, it must be right" (The Naturalistic Fallacy). So, if socialism isn't found in non-human animals, then it is not natural and is not "right". There are all sorts of things that are natural and "bad" and all sorts of things that are "unnatural" that are good. I'm not convinced that is what ustwo is trying to do.
I usually avoid discussions of nature and evolution on TFP because I think many of the questions raised are too complicated for this discussion format, the terms of the debate are constantly changing, and I may bore people.