tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post6968359173820808824..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Michael Ruse on moral philosophyRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62277469402494521172012-01-11T10:20:26.375+11:002012-01-11T10:20:26.375+11:00I liked Ruse’s post because he clearly described w...I liked Ruse’s post because he clearly described what I believe are factual errors in his thinking. Worst was the astonishing claim that normative ethics is a product of natural selection to further reproductive success. <br /><br />Perhaps he intended to present the less astonishing, but still in error, claim that our “moral biology” such as produces empathy, loyalty, and guilt is the only “evolutionary input” to human ethics.<br /><br />Why is this last claim a factual error? <br /><br />I described why it is an error in a comment I posted in the comments section on Ruse’s article. I’ll summarize it here for any who might be interested.<br /><br />The claim is a factual error because it does not include the “evolutionary input” of cultural evolution. Cultural evolution here means only that people select and copy (reproduce) cultural norms based on perceived attractiveness and benefits, which often have nothing to do with reproductive fitness.<br /> <br />This was fortunate for ethics because the emergence of culture forever unhitched morality from being only about reproductive fitness. <br /><br />The competing idea to Ruse’s is that 1) our biology based emotions like empathy, loyalty, and guilt that motivate altruistic behavior and 2) our enforced cultural norms (moral standards) such as “Do not kill, lie in court, or murder” and the many versions of the Golden Rule are biological and cultural heuristics for winning altruistic strategies from game theory. That is, their common function (no matter how diverse, contradictory, and bizarre in the case of enforced cultural norms) is to motivate or advocate altruistic behaviors that increase the many possible benefits of cooperation in groups.<br /><br />These altruistic strategies from game theory are as intrinsic to physical reality and as objective as the mathematics of game theory. <br /><br />This claimed function also has excellent explanatory power. For example, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a highly effective heuristic for the altruistic strategy from game theory called indirect reciprocity.<br /><br />The competing idea that the only “evolutionary input” to enforced cultural norms is our moral biology has, in comparison, virtually no explanatory power.Mark Sloannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-87202825928205981402012-01-11T00:59:16.405+11:002012-01-11T00:59:16.405+11:00All humans share a subconcious tendency for abstra...All humans share a subconcious tendency for abstract potential factors in computation.<br /><br />Hence, we can safely say that canadian parking-laws are universally embedded absolutes of the core space-time fabric.<br /><br />Philistines would disagree, of course.Svlad Cjellinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25168041003930993952012-01-10T05:58:08.434+11:002012-01-10T05:58:08.434+11:00Russell,
I am glad this discussion is taking place...Russell,<br />I am glad this discussion is taking place, but I must say I find Talking Philosophy an odd place due to its contributors. In fact, I probably would never visit the site if you weren't writing there. Here's why - Jeremy is completely arbitrary as a moderator - he gets all pissed off which Richard Wein (who is always a thoughtful commenter), but allows Jim Houston to be a complete asshole without a word. I can't understand the outsized ego of Houston who seems to have no presence other than at Talking Philosophy - no academic appointments, no books, no nothing.Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73766912516459425702012-01-10T01:05:26.430+11:002012-01-10T01:05:26.430+11:00From the description here, I would call those hard...From the description here, I would call those hardcoded, not absolute.<br /><br />It seems incredibly unlikely to me that any hardcoded moral that is in humans only would be absolute, since there is a fair amount of variation. (cf. Psychopaths)Robnoreply@blogger.com