Wikipedia has a good article on reciprocal altruism which references
some of the foundational work in this area.
Hauser argues that we have an innate sense of morality based on
evolved set of rules. As you point out that by itself does not make
morality, as morality depends on how these rules are implemented. But
is that not the same for such commandments as 'thou shall not kill',
and 'treat thy neighbor'?
what's wrong with enhancing a group's survival chances?
On Nov 8, 2006, at 3:31 AM, Merv wrote:
> Pim van Meurs wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why? In fact, if the fundamental commandment is very compatible
>> with kinship selection and reciprocal altruism then I find this
>> hard to accept. These are moral rules which help formulate moral
>> choices, moral laws etc
>>
>>
> What is "reciprocal altruism"?
>
> I know your questions are directed to David and regarding Hauser's
> work with which I'm not familiar, but I'll add a comment anyway.
>
> If the source of moral law is *only* in nature, then what could
> possibly be moral about it? Are gravity or inertia moral
> things? Doesn't an understanding of nature merely help us
> understand and more fully appreciate consequences of moral law?
> We can appreciate that the avoidance of eating certain unclean
> animals during would have had some good reasoning behind it when
> that command was given. But the real teeth behind such a law
> would still be "because God commanded it" -- wouldn't it? Without
> that last significant jump, it just becomes another "good idea"
> which may enhance a group's survival chances -- nothing more.
>
> --merv
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
Received on Wed Nov 8 11:55:14 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 08 2006 - 11:55:14 EST