1
   

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

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 11:51 am
Thomas wrote:
This may well be -- but your original point was that sociobiology is wrong, not that it is boring.

Can't it be both?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 12:16 pm
Chum wrote-

Quote:
Again with the Onanism spendi.


and

Quote:
Tell me about your mother.


Henry Fielding allowed some suspicions to enter the mind of his gracious heroine regarding the virtue of her cousin Mrs Fitzpatrick for the sole purpose of providing himself an opportunity to hold forth on the nature of suspicion generally and thus educate his fortunate readers in such a way that they might avoid the sort of things quoted herein.

Quote:
Of this there have always appeared to me to be two degrees. The first of these I chuse to derive from the heart, as the extreme velocity of its discernment seems to denote some previous inward impulse, and the rather as this superlative degree often forms its own objects; sees what is not, and always more than really exists. This is that quick-sighted penetration whose hawk's eyes no symptom of evil can escape; which observes not only upon the actions, but upon the words and looks, of men; and, as it proceeds from the heart of the observer, so it dives into the heart of the observed, and there espies evil, as it were, in the first embryo; nay, sometimes before it can be said to be conceived. An admirable faculty, if it were infallible; but, as this degree of perfection is not even claimed by more than one mortal being; so from the fallibility of such acute discernment have arisen many sad mischiefs and most grievous heart-aches to innocence and virtue. I cannot help, therefore, regarding this vast quicksightedness into evil as a vicious excess, and as a very pernicious evil in itself. And I am the more inclined to this opinion, as I am afraid it always proceeds from a bad heart, for the reasons I have above mentioned, and for one more, namely, because I never knew it the property of a good one. Now, from this degree of suspicion I entirely and absolutely acquit Sophia. 5
A second degree of this quality seems to arise from the head. This is, indeed, no other than the faculty of seeing what is before your eyes, and of drawing conclusions from what you see. The former of these is unavoidable by those who have any eyes, and the latter is perhaps no less certain and necessary a consequence of our having any brains. This is altogether as bitter an enemy to guilt as the former is to innocence: nor can I see it in an unamiable light, even though, through human fallibility, it should be some times mistaken. For instance, if a husband should accidentally surprise his wife in the lap or in the embraces of some of those pretty young gentlemen who profess the art of cuckold-making, I should not highly, I think, blame him for concluding something more than what he saw, from the familiarities which he really had seen, and which we are at least favourable enough to when we call them innocent freedoms. The reader will easily suggest great plenty of instances to himself; I shall add but one more, which, however unchristian it may be thought by some, I cannot help esteeming to be strictly justifiable; and this is a suspicion that a man is capable of doing what he hath done already, and that it is possible for one who hath been a villain once to act the same part again. And, to confess the truth, of this degree of suspicion I believe Sophia was guilty. From this degree of suspicion she had, in fact, conceived an opinion that her cousin was really not better than she should be.


Tom Jones. Book 11. Chapter 10.

This is why educated English gentlemen are loathe to be caught indulging their vanity in the fashion described.

Mr Fielding's strictures do not seem to have penetrated the American educational system. I have seen many examples on A2K and, sad to say, occasionally also from this side of the shining sea.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 02:04 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
This may well be -- but your original point was that sociobiology is wrong, not that it is boring.

Can't it be both?

It can -- but that wasn't wandeljw's original point either.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 02:27 pm
This may not be relevant but how does sociobiology explain the perceived need to use firing squads in the First World War when they seem to make it obvious that one large group of human beings, the conscripts, had an opposite interest to those in command?

Or, more generally, how is cowardice defined by sociobiologists?

One presumes that those in command had identical biological structures, on average, to those they commanded.

How does this discipline impinge on sexual politics?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 02:30 pm
Thomas wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
This may well be -- but your original point was that sociobiology is wrong, not that it is boring.

Can't it be both?

It can -- but that wasn't wandeljw's original point either.


I will clarify. I said sociobiology is a "pseudoscience". I later agreed that some lines of sociobiological inquiry may be profitable but would not result in anything significant.

The theorizing in sociobiology could support claims belonging to various agendas. Earlier, I made a joke that natural selection favors societies that are united around a single religious belief system. This indeed could be the theme of someone utilizing the sociobiology "paradigm".
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 02:51 pm
wandeljw wrote:
The theorizing in sociobiology could support claims belonging to various agendas. Earlier, I made a joke that natural selection favors societies that are united around a single religious belief system. This indeed could be the theme of someone utilizing the sociobiology "paradigm".

Why don't you read E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology, then show me where he engages in this kind of theorizing?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 03:47 pm
Thomas wrote:

Why don't you read E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology, then show me where he engages in this kind of theorizing?


A critique of E.O. Wilson can be found in:
The Use and Abuse of Biology by Marshall D. Sahlins

Sahlins is an anthropology professor at the University of Chicago and is much more qualified to critique Wilson than I am.

(My comment was based on sociobiology as a field of study.)
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 05:29 pm
Can anybody on here disperse a suspicion, which is entertained by some people, not that I would ever dream of such a thing myself speaking personally, that sociobiology is a job creation scheme organised by those already within the safety of the commanding heights for the benefit of their offspring, friends and other "contacts".

It does seem a trifle quaint how the subject seems to only converse with itself and shuns any awkward questions from outside its battlements and confines itself to a sort of esoteric language just as the monopoly of Latin in bygone times did in order to fill up the dinner plate without having rounded up the cows or shovelled the **** out of the shippons.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2007 10:54 am
Below is an excerpt from an essay by a sociologist that describes how the controversy over sociobiology was abated in the 1980's and 1990's.

Quote:
Sociobiology and Sociology
(Francois Nielsen, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 20, 1994)

Sociobiology has been defined by Wilson (1975:4) as "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior." Specifically, sociobiology focuses on evolutionary explanations of behavior within the context of the modern synthesis, or neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, more than it does on proximate causes of behavior. Sociobiology also refers to the collective enterprise, an "alliance of disciplines" (Lopreato 1992), that emerged to public consciousness in the mid-1970s with two influential statements: Wilson's (1975) monumental Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, and Dawkins' (1989 [1976]) The Selfish Gene, although the revival of Darwinism in social thought had begun substantially earlier (Degler 1991:215-44). Dawkins did not use the term "sociobiology," which was chosen by Wilson to denote the emerging discipline, and many captivated readers of his book did not realize they were exposed to the same ideas which, as presented by Wilson, would generate a flare of controversy.

The controversy, born of the fear of political implications, was to last several years (Sahlins 1976, Gould 1981, Lewontin et al 1984, Kitcher 1985). The controversial phase seems now to have abated, and sociobiological ideas have begun to make substantial inroads in anthropology and psychology (see Maxwell 1991, for influences in other fields, and Fisher 1991). Sociology has been more resistant, with much of the field still influenced by an antibiological and antievolutionary outlook (Greenwood 1984, Dietz et al 1990, van den Berghe 1974, 1990, Sanderson & Ellis 1992). Economics is a case apart, with a claim for having influenced sociobiology in the other direction by providing it with many of its formal analytical tools, such as optimization and game-theoretic models (Hirshleifer 1977, 1978a,b, 1985, Boyd & Richerson 1985:157-66, Smith 1992:21). While I use the term "sociobiology" in this review for convenience, the evolution of behavior has been studied under different names, such as behavioral or evolutionary ecology, biocultural or biosocial science, and Darwinian or evolutionary psychology (see Cronk 1991), from a desire to establish distance from the debate surrounding Wilson (1975, 1978) or to express a particular theoretical outlook more precisely. A number of excellent textbooks on sociobiology are now available, including Wilson (1980), Barash (1982), Daly & Wilson (1983), Trivers (1985), Badcock (1991), and Krebs & Davies (1993).
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 03:15 am
Quote:
The Moral Instinct
steven pinker
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?em&ex=1200459600&en=98ce460aefda898e&ei=5087%0A
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 07:55:48