Simon Paynton

Evolutionary ethics is philosophising about science.

Unseen wrote:
It’s the difference between “is” and “ought.” Sociology finds out what is the case. Moral philosophy asks what ought to be the case.

It’s a neat distinction, yet philosophy can’t tell us what we ought to do.  It can tell us what we ought to do if we have certain goals.  Science comes up with those goals.  Is that science or philosophy?

Unseen wrote:
Sociology may discover that Spartan society killed deformed male babies without asking if that was really right.  Philosophy asks if a society’s moral system is really right.

Society gets into the question of what a society’s moral system is.  Philosophy looks at that result and asks if it’s justified.

OK, but those are example…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
If that were true, what would the function of philosophy be, then?

I don’t know, it’s hard to tell the difference.  They both derive abstract patterns from the data (theories or hypotheses).  Is it the subject matter?  Is it the technique?  I would venture that science is about the physical world, and philosophy seeks to explain the…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Your scientific methods can only pin down morality with a historical asterisk attached to it.

I can back up the philosophy with scientific data and theories.

Philosophy and science both aim to construct a description of the world, do they not?

Unseen wrote:
“Morality” is a philosophical concept at heart.

It’s also a scientific one.  Is there really a difference?  I think the philosophy needs the science to philosophise about.

I don’t believe the OP was asking a philosophical question.  It’s a physical or scientific explanation that is required.

Unseen wrote:
I’m sorry, but any highbrow discussion of the philosophical foundations of morality collapses in my mind as soon as the word “foraging” crops up.

Is that what is required, though?  To ask where it comes from can mean a number of things.  This is a scientific explanation of the evolutionary forces that gave rise to it (hypoth…[Read more]

This OP is actually a very relevant question.  Where does morality come from?  The hard-won answer is manifold:

1. risky foraging niche of humans

2. requires cooperation to survive in

3. cooperation requires morality to regulate it.

Those are the external factors that give rise to morality.  There is also an internal factor, that you could sa…[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:
Logic tells me it doesn’t exist, but feelings tell me it does. I see no reason to deny my feelings, while I’m happy to tell my logic to sit this one out.

What if the factors that compel us to act this way or that, are way below or outside our comprehension?  So we feel like we have free will, but are actually pushed around by f…[Read more]

It’s been a very productive exchange.  By putting my theory to the test, I’ve been able to improve it no end.

I know I disparage the other moral systems for not being able to provide consistent, coherent answers.  But they have done an excellent job of delineating the moral landscape, and asking the right questions.  Utilitarianism is fairly simple to implement if it is formulated correctly (i.e., forget “the greatest good for the greatest number”).  It…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
A guy robbing a store or buying a child-bride isn’t spending a lot of time “pontificating” moral principles.

True, but there’s a whole science behind it, which is interesting.  People spend their entire careers on it, getting nowhere.

Unseen wrote:
I have some doubts as to whether coherent, consistent, and practical moral philosophy is even possible.

So you admit that your “real” moral systems are not real.

It’s never going to be possible to provide nice neat answers to moral dilemmas.  Life just isn’t like that.  Morality isn’t like that.

Unseen wrote:
I’m not going to reread everything you wrote to make sure, but I don’t recall you ever using the term “justice.” Rawls defined justice as fairness, another term I don’t recall you ever using.

Well, your recall is mistaken, I said them both right there.

“Always do what promotes the welfare and/or happiness of the group. Or don’t.”

[Read more]

Davis wrote:
thinking through a little more on what sets it apart from others. I would focus less on “competing” with other moral systems, and disparaging other systems and instead coming up with a more convincing reason for others to take yours more seriously.

I’m not studying how to compete with and disparage the other moral systems.  I’m stud…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Rawls’s philosophy is yours turned inside out and upside down. Whereas you emphasize the individual’s duty to society, he’s all about society’s duty to the individual.

You don’t talk about justice at all.

I talk about justice, but interpersonal justice.

you = me (basis of fairness and justice). Without the group, without we > me,…

[Read more]