Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tapirbackrider1 t1_irtbv0g wrote

Sorry, but Rosenburg’s dilemma will always destroy this kind of logic: is natural morality selected and therefore true, or true and therefore selected? Either option is absurd.

5

Puzzleheaded_Gas_163 t1_irui729 wrote

This dilemma reminds me of the structure of Plato's dialogue on what makes something pious.

2

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irvn5k5 wrote

The Euthyphro's dilemma I guess? A classic! I remember some philosopher, I think Colin McGinn, saying that Euthyphro's dilemma is to philosophers what climate change or evolutionary theory is for scientists: the one thing people actually have a consensus on.

3

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irvmzj1 wrote

I like that, thanks for sharing! But there is a third way: morality is rooted in traits that were selected for but is something built on top of it. Churchland hints at this, but someone who makes this very explicit is Philip Kitcher For him, morality is a "social technology" but it springs from something very deep within us. I have a full conversation about it with him:

https://on-humans.podcastpage.io/episode/2-humanistic-ethics-in-a-darwinian-world-philip-kitcher

2

FilthyTerrible t1_is0n0w7 wrote

Did Rosenburgh consider that evolution acts on genes and not individuals? And that humans are the only animals that can speak of another's actions and bear witness to the immoral behaviour of others? If ya miss out on the individually transcendent nature of both genes and speech, I imagine human altruism and morality might require some ad hoc metaphysical component injected in there to make sense.

1