tnf...here's a link you could give to any retarded students

[Grudge]

Daniel C. Dennett writes quite eloquently about how morality may have developed through both genetic and cultural evolution in his book Freedom Evolves.

I haven't read that yet. My guess would be that this account (partial genetic basis for morality) would be purely descriptive, am I right? Or does he suggest any implications for moral theorizing?

Of course there are implications for theorizing, why shouldn't there be? I'd say that there are quite more implications than if one would be regarding morals as a "finished" package, magically handed down to us by some kind of supernatural being? By regarding morals as (primarily) a cultural artifact among other cultural artifacts, and recognizing that it's current (and "unfinished") form has been shaped through strategies ensuring successful survival for individuals in a social context, for example.

[R00k]

That sounds interesting Grudge. It may even tie in with what I'm talking about. I might have to pick that one up.

[Grudge]

You should, it ties very nicely together with The Selfish Gene.

[Hannibal]

Of course there are implications for theorizing, why shouldn't there be? I'd say that there are quite more implications than if one would be regarding morals as a "finished" package, magically handed down to us by some kind of supernatural being? By regarding morals as (primarily) a cultural artifact among other cultural artifacts, and recognizing that it's current (and "unfinished") form has been shaped through strategies ensuring successful survival for individuals in a social context, for example.

I didn't ask if it was conceivable that implications for moral theorizing COULD be generated from a biological/cultural account of moral development...I asked you to tell me what, if any, implications Dennett himself identifies...you know like, given the story I've told you about how morality may have developed, including whatever functional role it seems to have played throughout history, here is what I think it all means for contemporary moral inquiry. This is what I was after. The supernatural?!? Is that his main target (i.e., the view that morality depends on God(s))?

[Grudge]

Ok, I think I must have misunderstood you there then.

Well, one thing he discusses is that there is an evolutional basis for altruism (or at least for a "modified" type of altruism he calls "benselfishness" - he really likes to question the definitions of certain terms, and he felt that the standard definition of "altruism" contains too many contradictions), which means that current ethics, economical and game theoretical views on people being ultimately selfish may not be correct.

I haven't started the final chapter yet (reading lots of other books in parallell, so it's a slow progress), maybe he mentions something else there. But the main idea he proposes is that you have to regard our biological and evolutional heritage when theorizing about morality, but since he's a philosopher, not a scientist, he can only point towards that more research needs to be done in that area.

[Hannibal]

Thank you. I'll read this puppy.

[Hannibal]

Having said all that, I have quite a bit of respect for Dawkins' interpretation of evolutionary stable systems in The Selfish Gene, and it seems highly possible to me that this kind of naturally corrective phenomenon could indeed have a lot to do with the development of our morality, which in turn has a strong bearing on law, politics, and other areas of human behavior.

Are you familiar with the concept of evolutionary stable systems in this context?

edit: Evolutionary Stable STRATEGY, that is. my fault.... O_o

I'm only vaguely familiar with this point of view (applying insights from evolutionary theory to the realm of moral inquiry) so I can't offer much by way of productive speculation. The tricky bit is going from biological 'facts' about ourselves to normative theory ( Hume's "is-ought" problem).

a relevant overview:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evol-eth.htm

[R00k]

I'll take a read through that, but just wanted to point out that the evolutionary stable strategy I'm speaking of is very close to what Grudge is talking about. I've only read about it in The Selfish Gene, which was released quite a while ago, so there may be more on it that I'm missing out on.

But it isn't based on genetics, or even insights from evolutionary theory; it is grounded more in game theory. And given an evolutionary stable strategy (by definition, a strategy which can't be improved on by an individual when all other individuals in the environment consistently act on it), it is more than feasible (IMO) that natural selection could and would weed out genes that cause organisms to behave in a way that is contrary to the ESS.

It's a fundamentally simple, and quite elegant, approach to the question.

[Hannibal]

Okies, got thrown off by the phraseology (and my ignorance of game theory).

I'll check it.