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:Dr. de Waal does not accept the philosophers' view that biologists cannot step from "is" to "ought." "I'm not sure how realistic the distinction is," he said. "Animals do have ?'oughts.' If a juvenile is in a fight, the mother must get up and defend her. Or in food sharing, animals do put pressure on each other, which is the first kind of ?'ought' situation."
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?