Wouldn’t saying “man hunts food to eat and survive” be about the same thing? We’ve learned how to live with each other without the need to result to violence to resolve problems thus resulting in a longer life span and more offspring, ensuring the continuous of our species. There is no argument here, we compromise to survive. “Morality” is the word we can use to encompass an entire philosophy of life we’ve agreed upon in order to further our life spans. “These are the rules, are you cool with that?”
“Yeah, I’m cool with that.”
“Cool”
Or
“No, I’m not cool with that and I’ll fight you over it”
Winner dictates new rules, aka, “morality”
This isn’t a breakthrough, merely stating the obvious.
Our fragile ego’s decide what rules we are okay with living by. Our view of what “living” is changes as our standard of living changes. Our entire idea of “moral truths” mean nothing without survival. Survival often means compromising by today’s standards, but a few hundred years ago philosophy meant shit against brute force. Still does. It’s only our collective philosophy as a human species today that says “hey wait, we should talk this over first” and allows for such things as Reddit downvotes instead of absolute death. The title of this article and Philips work could have been summed up as “2+2=4”. All life is a Darwinian view of life, end of story.
valeriesghost t1_ismmcv8 wrote
Reply to Philip Kitcher argues that morality is a social technology designed to solve problems emerging from the fragility of human altruism. Morality can be evaluated objectively, but without assuming moral truths. The view makes sense against a Darwinian view of life, but it is not social Darwinism. by Ma3Ke4Li3
Wouldn’t saying “man hunts food to eat and survive” be about the same thing? We’ve learned how to live with each other without the need to result to violence to resolve problems thus resulting in a longer life span and more offspring, ensuring the continuous of our species. There is no argument here, we compromise to survive. “Morality” is the word we can use to encompass an entire philosophy of life we’ve agreed upon in order to further our life spans. “These are the rules, are you cool with that?” “Yeah, I’m cool with that.” “Cool”
Or
“No, I’m not cool with that and I’ll fight you over it”
Winner dictates new rules, aka, “morality”
This isn’t a breakthrough, merely stating the obvious.
Our fragile ego’s decide what rules we are okay with living by. Our view of what “living” is changes as our standard of living changes. Our entire idea of “moral truths” mean nothing without survival. Survival often means compromising by today’s standards, but a few hundred years ago philosophy meant shit against brute force. Still does. It’s only our collective philosophy as a human species today that says “hey wait, we should talk this over first” and allows for such things as Reddit downvotes instead of absolute death. The title of this article and Philips work could have been summed up as “2+2=4”. All life is a Darwinian view of life, end of story.