Brent meeker writes:

> Evolution explains why we have good and bad, but it doesn't explain why > good and bad feel as they do, or why we *should* care about good and > bad
That's asking why we should care about what we should care about, i.e. good and bad.  
Good feels as it does because it is (or was) evolutionarily advantageous to do that, e.g. 
have sex.  Bad feels as it does because it is (or was) evolutionarily advantageous to not 
do that, e.g. hold your hand in the fire.  If it felt good you'd do it, because that's 
what "feels good" means, a feeling you want to have.

But it is not an absurd question to ask whether something we have evolved to think is good really is good. You are focussing on the descriptive aspect of ethics and ignoring the normative. Even if it could be shown that a certain ethical belief has been hardwired into our brains this does not make the qustion of whether the belief is one we ought to have an absurd one. We could decide that evolution sucks and we have to deliberately flout it in every way we can. It might not be a wise policy but it is not *wrong* in the way it would be wrong to claim that God made the world 6000 years ago.

>beyond following some imperative of evolution. For example, the Nazis > argued that eliminating inferior specimens from the gene pool would ultimately > produce a superior species. Aside from their irrational inclusion of certain > groups as inferior, they were right: we could breed superior humans following > Nazi eugenic programs, and perhaps on other worlds evolution has made such > programs a natural part of life, regarded by everyone as "good". Yet most of > us would regard them as bad, regardless of their practical benefits.

Would we?  Before the Nazis gave it a bad name, eugenics was a popular movement 
in the U.S. mostly directed at sterilizing mentally retarded people.  I think 
it would be regarded as bad simply because we don't trust government power to 
be exercised prudently or to be easily limited  - both practical 
considerations.  If eugenics is practiced voluntarily, as it is being practiced 
in the U.S., I don't think anyone will object (well a few fundamentalist 
luddites will).

What about if we tested every child and allowed only the superior ones to reproduce? The point is, many people would just say this is wrong, regardless of the potential benefits to society or the species, and the response to this is not that it is absurd to hold it as wrong (leaving aside emotional rhetoric).

Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to