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

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.

Again, I don't see the contradiction between "social" and "instinctive". Our social behavior as humans would be impossible without instincts such as love, hate, pride, shame, guilt, envy, and many others. Our social behavior is, to a very large degree, driven by instincts. Don't take my word on this, ask any marriage counselor. I think you are setting up a false choice here.

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.

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?

Again, I don't see the contradiction between "social" and "instinctive". Our social behavior as humans would be impossible without instincts such as love, hate, pride, shame, guilt, envy, and many others.

Thomas wrote:

Again, I don't see the contradiction between "social" and "instinctive". Our social behavior as humans would be impossible without instincts such as love, hate, pride, shame, guilt, envy, and many others.

Those aren't instincts, they're emotions. Instinct is an unlearned behavior. Humans may have some instincts (fear of heights, for instance, might be one of them), but not many. Emotions, on the other hand, are most definitely learned behaviors. "Feral children," for instance, seldom exhibit what we would recognize as love, hate, pride, shame, guilt, or envy.

Emotions aren't instincts, but we have instincts to feel emotions under certain situations. I'm surprised that anyone would disagree with that...

stuh505 wrote:

Emotions aren't instincts, but we have instincts to feel emotions under certain situations. I'm surprised that anyone would disagree with that...

I'm surprised anyone would say something so inane.

"Emotion" is the term we use for feelings, some of which are instinctive and some of which are learned from those around us as we conform to society's expectations and norms. Human emotions range from "primitive" feelings such as disgust, rage, fear and lust to "complex" emotions compassion and jealousy.

Recent studies, especially in fields such as neuropsychology, show that the more "primitive" or basic emotions have a physiological basis and may be caused by chemical stimuli (such as sexual attractant scents called pheromones) or visual stimuli. Basic emotions appear to cause chemical changes in the body in response to a stimulus.

From "Do Cats Have Emotions ?" Sarah Hartwell.

Quote:

"Emotion" is the term we use for feelings, some of which are instinctive and some of which are learned from those around us as we conform to society's expectations and norms. Human emotions range from "primitive" feelings such as disgust, rage, fear and lust to "complex" emotions compassion and jealousy.

Recent studies, especially in fields such as neuropsychology, show that the more "primitive" or basic emotions have a physiological basis and may be caused by chemical stimuli (such as sexual attractant scents called pheromones) or visual stimuli. Basic emotions appear to cause chemical changes in the body in response to a stimulus.

What do you make, then, of "oughts" that seem to be acting contrary to our biological imperatives? For instance, suppose a young woman of childbearing years sees an elderly woman drowning in a pond. I think we'd agree that it would be morally praiseworthy (although perhaps not morally obligatory) for the young woman to attempt to save the old woman, even at the risk of her own life. Yet, from a biological standpoint, risking young women to save old women doesn't make much sense, since young women have far more value to the continuation of the species than do post-menopausal women. So, in this case, would you agree with the ethicist who praises the young woman or the biologist who scolds her?

Blatham,

I'm just drawing your attention to my link above to the original kuvasz thread on this issue.

Thomas wrote:

Again, I don't see the contradiction between "social" and "instinctive". Our social behavior as humans would be impossible without instincts such as love, hate, pride, shame, guilt, envy, and many others.

Those aren't instincts, they're emotions. Instinct is an unlearned behavior. Humans may have some instincts (fear of heights, for instance, might be one of them), but not many. Emotions, on the other hand, are most definitely learned behaviors. "Feral children," for instance, seldom exhibit what we would recognize as love, hate, pride, shame, guilt, or envy.

The "seem" in your first sentence is the kicker. It is by no means a given that the biologist would have reason, in the context of the presumed argument, to so scold. All we need to assume is that evolutionary advantages accrue (generally, but that's what counts). If empathy for those around one, even when personal risk or risk to offspring is involved, works out better than "selfishness" for survival of individual and offspring more often than not, then you are there. And that's clearly not difficult to imagine.

Re Hume...I'll defer to your and thomas' knowledge of what the fellow was up to at the time but surely epistemological inquiry at that period (and because it was Hume) would run smack into the contemporary theological monopoly on what was 'true' and how that might be established.

As to fear of heights...there seems to be no maybe about that one. There was a wonderful experiment done some years back where infants were placed on one spot on the floor and had to crawl across a clear glass plate with a significant fall visible below, to get to mommy. They skitter merrily across until a specific and narrow pre-verbal age range, then they balk and show other signs of fearfulness.

Though instinct and emotion are not the same, I'm not sure how our differentiation is much helpful here. Again, if we consider language, it would certainly be the case that feral children wouldn't develop that either. In either case, propensity or capability would remain dormant and unrealized outside of a social context.