On 1 Sep 2008, at 15:34, Olin Elliott wrote: >> The question 'where do our ethical ideas come from' has the answer >> 'our nature as social mammals'. > >> The question 'how do we tell good from bad' does not have the answer >> 'our nature as social mammals'. > >> Category Mistake Maru > > I'm not sure this is true, although I'll admit I don't have the > answersto the questions it raises. If our ethical ideas come from > our nature as social animals -- and I do believe that's true, even > to the degree that we share "ethics" to a large degree with other > social animals -- for instance birds who mate for life, the > intricate social systems of wolf packs and primates, or the amazing > civility of dogs toward other dogs (just go to a dog park sometime > and observe for a while the "rules" by which dogs interact, and how > 99% of the time even a group of strange dogs who have never met > before recognize and behave by those rules) -- if all of that comes > from our nature as social animals, then where else can the ability > to tell right from wrong come from? Those of us who do not believe > in a transcendent power, a revealed ethical system, can't argue from > authority or tradition. The real danger here is that we can easily > descend into total relativsm, which is essentially no ethic > al system at all. I think we all believe that there are some things > which are write and wrong absolutely (or every nearly so), but > explaining that belief is more difficult. If our ethical ideas are > a product f evolution and our social nature, and if the only way we > can tell good from bad is by nature of our eithical ideas, then if > follows that it all arises out of evolution. The question is how?
I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about ethics using our intelligence. > > > Stephen Pinker, Daniell Dennett and other writers have done some > very provocative work on this and related qestions. One explanation > would be that our ethical sense is an emergent property of our > species specific reasoning skills which are themselves probably a > product of lanague. The ability to make analogies, to reason about > long-term consequences, to imagine the effect of our behavior on > others, and to abstract general propositions from specific > circumstances all create a new level of ethical concerns. > > Ethics seems to be a little like mathematics, in the sense that > there may be certain "axioms" that we have to start with, which > cannot in themselves be proven. Since there are an infinite number > of these possible axioms, we are left with the question of how to > choose between them. Perhaps it comes down to something like the > pragmatic test that William James and others suggested: the "cash > value" of ideas. If I hold such-and-such an ethical principle, and > I draw out all the logical conclusions from that principle, what > kind of world would I be living in? This approach has had mixed > success of course. And if it's like mathematics it raises the question would aliens develop the same ethics as us? > > > I think there's also an analogy to language. Noam Chomsky pointed > out a long time ago that certain aspects of lanague are hardwired > into the human brain, they develop normally in any child exposed to > language in a critical period. He noted that many of the patterns > found in laugages around the world are not inherntly logical -- and > that it is possible to create far more logical, rational language -- > Esperanto is an example -- but humans have a hard time learning > these languages, because the are not human languages, not in keeping > with the intricate grammar structured in our heads by evoltuion. I > suspect that the same thing is true of a lot of our idealistic > ethical systems -- and the systems I hold most precious, democracy, > the open society, etc. almost certainly fall into this category -- > they do not come naturally to us, and in a sense we must re-learn > them over and over again, and we must make a concious effort to > translate from our "natural ethical language" into these > systems, because on a basic level we may never really learn to > think in them. Maybe out descendents will, if these systems turn > out to have survival value. > > These are all scientific questions though. If the answers don't > come form there, where will they come from? Fortunately people don't spend much time arguing about which language is 'best' ;-) Sapir-Whorf Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ~Voltaire. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
