RE: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

I think there is a fundamental difference between laws like "Speed Limit 60 mph" and "Thou should not steal." Surely, Communists and Nazis have their "moral" laws that are arbitrary and certainly do not apply to them. That is a typical feature of man-made laws, whereas true moral laws are two-edged swords that cut both ways.

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Campbell
Sent: Tue 11/7/2006 1:45 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

I'm not sure that the definition of morality has been entirely worked
out here, and that will affect the assessment of claims about
evolutionary explanations.

Many moral standards align with factors that could be advantageous to
group survival. The ability of humans to transmit information across
space and time means that offending another can have extensive and
lasting consequences. Thus, there is conceivable selective pressure
in favor of development of innate or socially mandated moral
standards.

On the other hand, figuring out how to get around the standards to
one's own advantage might conceivably be successful (on the mere
criterion of genetic success) . Thus, there are conceivable
evolutionary pressures against this.

However, none of this provides any philosophical justification for a
particular set of standards.

First, one is making a philosophical claim to assert that science
provides a useful source of moral guidance. Science cannot assess
that type of claim.

Secondly, evolution or other science merely tells us that a given set
of physical factors are likely to produce a given result. It does not
tell us that one result or method is more desirable or more ethical
than another. Such decisions are again a philosophical premise. Of
course, given a premise such as "It is morally imperative for me to do
whatever best advances my evolutionary success" or "Physical injury to
a person is wrong unless it is necessary to achieve a greater good for
that person", one can then use science to help determine things that
accord with the initial premise.

Such systems also give no particularly compelling reason to adhere to
them. Evolution suggests that I am likely to have an interest in my
own evolutionary success, but that doesn't morally compel me to do so.
 Dawkins is right to say that his view does not prevent someone from
composing beautiful music, though I can't say it seems very inspiring
in that direction. However, it also does not prevent someone from
making car bombs, either-it doesn't especially compell any particular
activity.

Finally, full-blown acceptance of evolutionary, etc. standards
generally doesn't actually match what we want. I bet Dawkins would
object if I sought to advance my success by trying to create a vacancy
in his job that I could fill (thus providing stable income, etc. for
my family). Upon examination, purportedly evolutionary moral systems
such as eugenics, Marxism, etc. usually boil down to "everyone ought
to seek to advance MY evolutionary success." However, everyone else
is equally empowered by evolution to try to get ahead at my expense as
well. Alternatively, one could try to achieve evolutionary success by
cooperation-evolution does not necessarily entail another's expense,
it merely permits it. It's like the calls for moral relativism that
really mean "everybody should be able to do what I want." No moral
relativist accepts the claim that it is not wrong for someone to mug
him.

Another consideration in all this is that the moral law as presented
in the Bible is not some set of arbitrary hoops God wants us to jump
through. Rather, obeying them is in our own interest as well. Thus,
the fact that they can potentially receive some evolutionary
justification is no surprise.

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.