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

David O.'s distinction that Singer and Hauser appear to take a 'strong' conclusion about the supposed evolution of human morality seems helpful. A 'weak' conclusion appears possible to reconcile with particular religious ethics. Does anyone wonder though how Singer and Hauser speak about religious ethics? Are there any hand wavings and denials?
   
  It seems to be much more difficult to actually take a stand on some moral principles that are 'objectively' defined, e.g. according to a sacred text or religious tradition, than it is to take no stand at all and to argue for moral relativity. Those who suggest morality is based in/on language or some form of 'innate behaviour,' and yet who won't include the spiritual dimension (or if they do, materializing it), seem obliged to include the realms of philosophy (ethics), law and theology, rather than positing a simple physicalistic basis for morality. PvM's views sometimes seem to verge on excluding knowledge only to physical, calculable, scientific things, as with Hauser's theory.
   
  If nature explains or 'evolution determines' human choices and/or moral systems (David O.’s word choice), that is, if choices and systems can be 'reduced by explanation' to naturalistic language, then there seems no need for ASA to exist because science and faith would be excluded from one another.
   
  If, as PvM writes, "the ten commandments can be reduced to the outcome of evolutionary processes," then the Bible has been (fully) relativized, (individualistic) interpretation for interpretation's sake has won the day and evolution is indeed just such a theory that explains the meaning of life (ala R.D.). Evolution would thus be bigger than any tenet of Christian theology because its meaning has been stretched into every field imaginable. Does this sound like a suitable answer for moral subjectivity in an age of pluralism? Hauser’s plan is a call to abandon monism because (he thinks) monism has come undone!
   
  "Evolution can surely not say anything much about philosophical concepts although it can help understand how we approach such concepts." - PvM
   
  I am still astonished by how strongly people defend evolutionary science and weakly defend evolutionary philosophy (as if philosophy were not that important). It seems obvious that the philosophy of evolution has outpaced the science of evolution by leaps and bounds (pardon the pun, gradualists)! Allowing evolution to hold a monopoly on the philosophical notion of 'change-over-time' reveals how the philosophy of evolution outpaces the science, since all sciences are also said to simply ‘evolve’ (c.f. Kuhn’s remarks), which is ironically an observation made ‘outside’ of science itself.
   
  “If by evolution you mean a scientific theory, which deals with the physical aspect of Nature, then it can say nothing of nonphysical entities like, values, meaning, purpose, etc.” – Alexanian
   
  Though this would seem to be an appealing solution to avoid confusing materialistic or naturalistic evolution with theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism, at the same time it begs a question: Does one simply flip between evolution as a science and evolution as a philosophy whenever it suits them, or are there rules and special distinctions between the logic (logos) and the science of evolution? Morality, right and wrong, don’t normally count as scientific topics. Perhaps this is what Hauser is trying to make them become: evolution that turns morality into a scientific issue?
   
  Arago
   
  

David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. Weak -- Human evolutionary history has generated biological /
emotional dispositions that relate to moral choices. Evolutionary
history, however, is not determinative of moral choices or descriptive
of moral systems. There may be references for morality external to
human evolutionary history.
>> 2. Strong -- Human evolutionary history determines the range and
nature of human evolutionary choices. There are no references for
morality external to human evolutionary history.
>> My reading of Hauser, Singer et al. is that they tend towards the
"Strong" view. IMHO, that position is fundamentally inconsistent with
any sort of Christian ethics.

> 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

The problem from a Christian viewpoint with the "strong" view is its
presupposition that everything is exclusively determined
evolutionarily. The claim is made that, because moral standards are
typically roughly in line with principles that could be evolutionarily
favored for group survival, therefore all moral standards are merely
the product of evolution and there is no room for supernatural
factors.

The "weak" view as I interpret it is more what Pim is advocating in
his question.

A significant problem of the strong view is that it explains anything
and thus nothing. Any number of behaviors can potentially find
evolutionary explanations. From my animal behavior class, I remember
on the one hand the claim that the Yanamamos, in a quarrel, took sides
based on relationship to a more precise degree than their language
expressed, yet on the other hand self-sacrifice for some stranger gets
dismissed as a mistaken effort at kin protection.

The weak view, by admitting other factors besides evolution, may
provide a way to choose among the numerous options that are compatible
with promoting evolutionary success, not to mention possibly
indicating that evolutionary success is not always the top priority or
dealing with situations with no clear implications for evolutionary
success.

(PS-It might be useful to define evolutionary success. It is
increasing one's genes in later generations.)

-- 
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.
 		
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail  
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.