Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

r0ndy t1_irrv59h wrote

Reply to comment by Ma3Ke4Li3 in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Adding biological impulses, does not define morality. Is the idea that these biological imperatives/impulses become the morality? Procreative impulses come to mind, and morality currently holds heavily in this area. Morality by this, cannot safely be defined by biological impulses. Though, at a root level, everything can be accepted once normalized. Add in outliers for everything.

2

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irryv3w wrote

I don't think the argument would be quite that biological impulses "become" or "are" morality. Rather, certain biological impulses must be in place for there to be a "platform" for morality.

So the question is, why is it that there is a corner of the animal kingdom where anything vaguely resembling morality could have taken off? And Churchland argues that it is not a coincidence that it is this warm-blooded ape, instead of, say, salamanders, that does moral philosophy.

5

r0ndy t1_irrzt7k wrote

I'm going to back out. I think I could misspeak to easily. Or throw too many questions my ADHD brain wouldn't process first... lol. Hopefully I can keep up with comments though

2

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irs703d wrote

Haha sure :D but do shoot some ideas back if you feel like it.

2