My view, which people have disagreed with in the past, is that moral truths stem from evolutionary and biological drives involved in animal group relations.
Behaviors or actions that are generally termed "immoral" are detrimental to the propagation and health of a species or group, thus impeding its survival. Our ideas of "morals" have derived over the years from this concept that stems from a biological drive to allow for robust mutually productive communities.
I guess this may fall into the category of moral naturalism and most likely carries with it the problems of the is/ought and open question problem.
I guess it also carries elements of cultural relativism with it, because morals that are beneficial to one group's survival may differ relative to time and place.
I know this way of thinking might be a little cold, kindof shuts out God and individual thinking and all that, which I'm totally for.
I guess it's really just utilitarianism which I'm sure comes with it's own philosophical problems.
I agree with you, moral truths do stem from biological relations which have a bearing on the evolution of our species.
In fact, I'd argue that morality, as an evolutionary construct, has done more to make us who we are than just about anything else, except for language and the brain to some extent, although all of them go together if you ask me.
That being said though, I do not go as far as to say that morality is simply constructed, whether socially or evolutionarily.
I think there are limits, or better said, there is a structure that limits the potential options we have as moral creatures.
Just like we could have never evolved a head that was 50% heavier than the body, we could not have evolved moralities that were "unnatural", if I can even say that, which I don't want to as that is a slippery slope!
That's an interesting idea, that morality has made us who we are.
We can't really take evolution away from any modern structure, I think, as cold and robotic as these structures may seem. Still, there will always be the dilemma of for example, the powerful american company taking advantage of naive weak communities for their resources. The company is exploiting this community to benefit its own. It may be natural but is it moral?
And what you say is true, that morality is not simply constructed and so the concept can never fit into any nice neat category.
Maybe that's where moral skepticism is beneficial, in that it allows us to analyze situation on a case by case basis, using base principles to make decisions. When we don't know what to do...well we consult the ideal observer. However, in our society the ideal observer is often someone whose integrity is questionable (government, religious figures).
4 comments:
The concept of a scientific moral truth is interesting, funny (in a going too far kind of way) and challenging to understand!
I like it!
I like this.
My view, which people have disagreed with in the past, is that moral truths stem from evolutionary and biological drives involved in animal group relations.
Behaviors or actions that are generally termed "immoral" are detrimental to the propagation and health of a species or group, thus impeding its survival. Our ideas of "morals" have derived over the years from this concept that stems from a biological drive to allow for robust mutually productive communities.
I guess this may fall into the category of moral naturalism and most likely carries with it the problems of the is/ought and open question problem.
I guess it also carries elements of cultural relativism with it, because morals that are beneficial to one group's survival may differ relative to time and place.
I know this way of thinking might be a little cold, kindof shuts out God and individual thinking and all that, which I'm totally for.
I guess it's really just utilitarianism which I'm sure comes with it's own philosophical problems.
I agree with you, moral truths do stem from biological relations which have a bearing on the evolution of our species.
In fact, I'd argue that morality, as an evolutionary construct, has done more to make us who we are than just about anything else, except for language and the brain to some extent, although all of them go together if you ask me.
That being said though, I do not go as far as to say that morality is simply constructed, whether socially or evolutionarily.
I think there are limits, or better said, there is a structure that limits the potential options we have as moral creatures.
Just like we could have never evolved a head that was 50% heavier than the body, we could not have evolved moralities that were "unnatural", if I can even say that, which I don't want to as that is a slippery slope!
That's an interesting idea, that morality has made us who we are.
We can't really take evolution away from any modern structure, I think, as cold and robotic as these structures may seem. Still, there will always be the dilemma of for example, the powerful american company taking advantage of naive weak communities for their resources. The company is exploiting this community to benefit its own. It may be natural but is it moral?
And what you say is true, that morality is not simply constructed and so the concept can never fit into any nice neat category.
Maybe that's where moral skepticism is beneficial, in that it allows us to analyze situation on a case by case basis, using base principles to make decisions. When we don't know what to do...well we consult the ideal observer. However, in our society the ideal observer is often someone whose integrity is questionable (government, religious figures).
Back to square one.
Post a Comment