"Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary mechanisms?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A bit of a quandry here on which discussion area to present this. Chomsky (and some others) have suggested that the moral capacity/propensity may be resident in us in much the same manner as language capabilities/propensities, that we are "hardwired" for it. This seems rather reasonable to me.

Quote:

page one of three... see more here http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,027 • Replies: 109

No top replies

Makes sense to me.

0 Replies

Re: "Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary m

blatham wrote:

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

That's a bit like saying that, because humans are omnivores as the result of millenia of evolution, it is for biologists to say what's for dinner tonight.

0 Replies

Re: "Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary m

joefromchicago wrote:

blatham wrote:
Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

That's a bit like saying that, because humans are omnivores as the result of millenia of evolution, it is for biologists to say what's for dinner tonight.

The point he is making is that there are concrete scientific foundations to morals that can be determined, which would be preferable to the opinionated speculation that a non-scientist would offer. So no, I don't think you can fairly make the comparison to what's for dinner. It's beef anyway.

0 Replies

Very interesting thread, blatham. However, I share joefromchicago's scepticism. I consider sociobiology to be pseudoscience.

0 Replies

Re: "Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary m

blatham, citing the New York Times, wrote:

They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

They may have a chance to make testable predictions about what these rules are, although I can't imagine how you would test them. But even so, I don't see how the biologists' competence on "is" questions gives them competence on "ought" questions, which is what philosophers and theologians are speaking to. Just because our sex drive evoloved biologically, does this give biologists the competence to reject condoms as immoral? This paragraph sounds sounds suspiciously like journalistic hype pimping up what the biologists actually said. I haven't read the biologists' statements though.

blatham, citing the New York Times, wrote:

Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book "Moral Minds" that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language.

Sounds plausible, and may at some point inform natural law theory. I have always regretted that this academic field has been abandoned by almost everyone but Catholic theologians.

Blatham, citing the New York Times, wrote:

Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality. But he argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.

Sounds sensible on the side of Frans deWaal, whose fascinating book Chimpanzee Politics I warmly recommend. Regrettably however, the New York Times isn't citing any actual philosophers to support what "many philosophers find". I react instinctively skeptical to such confident but unsourced statements about a whole profession.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

I consider sociobiology to be pseudoscience.

Which sociobiology texts are you basing this judgment on?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
I consider sociobiology to be pseudoscience.

Which sociobiology texts are you basing this judgment on?

Simply put, Thomas, I always take a position that is opposite to yours. Smile

Seriously, though, I will be back later to provide a more detailed explanation of my pronouncement.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Simply put, Thomas, I always take a position that is opposite to yours.

A sound strategy, which joefromchicago will no doubt approve of. Very Happy

0 Replies

Re: "Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary m

stuh505 wrote:

The point he is making is that there are concrete scientific foundations to morals that can be determined, which would be preferable to the opinionated speculation that a non-scientist would offer. So no, I don't think you can fairly make the comparison to what's for dinner. It's beef anyway.

It's still an "is-ought" problem, as Thomas points out. If, for instance, biologists determine that humans are "hardwired" to be altruistic, that still doesn't mean that humans ought to be altruistic. Humans, after all, may also be hardwired to kill their rivals (and there's certainly a good deal of violence among some species of primates), but I doubt that we should conclude, based on that fact, that humans ought to kill their rivals.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Simply put, Thomas, I always take a position that is opposite to yours.

A sound strategy, which joefromchicago will no doubt approve of.

It hasn't failed me yet.

0 Replies

Re: "Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary m

Thomas wrote:

I don't see how the biologists' competence on "is" questions gives them competence on "ought" questions, which is what philosophers and theologians are speaking to. Just because our sex drive evoloved biologically, does this give biologists the competence to reject condoms as immoral?

I don't agree that philosophy speaks primarily on "ought to" questions, I think it is very much about what "is." Theology maybe is "ought" to but that's a different thing altogether.

Anyway, in this context, I think it's clear that the author is talking only about "is" questions..as am I when I agree with him.

0 Replies

Re: "Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary m

stuh505 wrote:

I don't agree that philosophy speaks primarily on "ought to" questions, I think it is very much about what "is." Theology maybe is "ought" to but that's a different thing altogether.

Moral philosophy is nothing but "ought" questions.

0 Replies

A brief explanation of my scepticism regarding sociobiology: Biology can explain instinctive behavior. However, I can't see how biology can account for social behavior. Isn't this similar to using biology to support creationism?

0 Replies

Re: "Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary m

joefromchicago wrote:

blatham wrote:
Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

That's a bit like saying that, because humans are omnivores as the result of millenia of evolution, it is for biologists to say what's for dinner tonight.

LOL! It is indeed. Lovely analogy.

Of course, as the piece goes on to clarify, that wouldn't be a very sophisticated take on it all. Biologists can tell us, to a great extent, what it is we are likely to find yummy and what we'll probably find disgusting/inedible.

0 Replies

In the title of his thread, Blatham wrote:

"Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary mechanisms?

At the danger of splitting hairs, I would caution against the "arising out of" part. If you look at biological evolution from the gene's point of view, it looks a lot like neoclassical economics (or game theory, if you look at a small number of genes). If you look at morality from a utilitarian point of view, it also looks a lot like neoclassical economics (or game theory, if you look at a small number of humans). So if there is a family resemblance between evolution and morality, it may well be because both deal with similar concepts like maximization and equilibrium, cooperation and conflict. It may well not be because there's a causal link from evolution to morality.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

A brief explanation of my scepticism regarding sociobiology: Biology can explain instinctive behavior. However, I can't see how biology can account for social behavior.

Why not? Consider how much social behavior there is within ant heaps and beehives. In your opinion, should biologists quit studying how ant heaps function? Should they yield this academic field to sociologists?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
A brief explanation of my scepticism regarding sociobiology: Biology can explain instinctive behavior. However, I can't see how biology can account for social behavior.

Why not? Consider how much social behavior there is within ant heaps and beehives. In your opinion, should biologists quit studying how ant heaps function? Should they yield this academic field to sociologists?

I would describe the phenomenon of ant heaps and beehives as "instinctive" behavior. If biologists call it social behavior, I only hope that they do not extend such an explanation to human society. I am poorly paraphrasing the words of Charles Darwin, but I would like to repeat Darwin's warning about using a dog to explain the mind of Isaac Newton.

0 Replies

The is/ought question does leap to the fore, but I'm compelled by DeWaal's statement here (which isn't necessarily accurately stated in the writer's preamble sentence).

Quote:

I doubt that "oughts" float somewhere outside of us, pristine and unanchored in our biological and social natures. Our propensity to conceive in this manner seems surely a consequence of evolutionary processes and nothing else.

It wouldn't be that something is "right" because of our biology, or that "right/wrong" are concretized in our cells, it would only be that we would conceive a "thing" which has no reality outside of our conceiving it.

My understanding of the is/ought question/fallacy is that it arose from Hume's analyses of the extant theology of his period and certain claims it made, rather in the manner that Voltaire satirized the set of assumptions lying beneath "the best of all possible worlds"...god is good, therefore what he has created must be good. Is that you fellas' understanding as well?

0 Replies

"Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary mechanisms?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know