From: Owleye 




"Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:

>
> > 1.  What is the "sort of social contract theory" that is "often juxtaposed to > Kant?"
> >
>
> Rawls is perhaps the most famous, but I am simply referring to a whole host
> of attempts to reduce morality to a form of reciprocal altruism, in which
> the benefits to all the participants outweigh the costs, and therefore in
> which it is in everyone's MUTUAL best interest to conform to a "moral"
> code.  These are often
> referred to as attempts to naturalize ethics, to explain the presence of
> our moral sense either in prudential terms or in terms of what might have
> been best for the species etc.

Well, this concept of reductionism that you refer to is hardly what morality is all about
in Kant's duty-based moral theory.  Kant's social contract theory is used in his Doctrine
of Justice (or Doctrine of Right) to provide a basis for a society based on external laws
of freedom.  In any case, altruism is not even close to what Kant has in mind as a basis
for morality.  What you speak to seems more closely related to a utilitarian or at least a
utility-based system.

>
>
> > 2.  What is your objection to it?
> >
>
> All such theories are simply examples of enlightened self-interest, and
> as such, do not capture the essence of morality which, in my humble
> opinion, entails the notion of self-sacrifice rather than enlightened
> self-interest.  They fall under the heading of prudence rather than
> morality, and as such never come to grips with the real problem of
> explaining morality in a species of naturally selected organism.

I can be sympathetic to your position though I would need to have a better understanding
how sacrifice is to be understood.

>
>
> > 3.  How can we be valuatively impartial?  Is this akin to being a field
> > anthropologist who thinks that she must be value-neutral?
> >
>
> You and I probably can't be valuatively impartial, particularly given the
> likelyhood that we have a little bit of rationality sitting on top of
> a half a billion years of arational motivational foundation.  But that
> wouldn't alter the fact that a THEORY of rationality which entails 'being
> objective' as a synonym for 'being rational' might well have superior
> epistemic credentials compared with its competing theores, such as egoism
> or the mean/end theory (simplicity, elegance, explanatory coherence,
> compatibility with ordinary use of words, etc.).
>
> > 4.  How are values observed?
> >
>
> They are inferred more often than not, even with regard to one's own
> values, from one's behavior.  But the most important value of all,
> IMHO, feelings of worth or worthlessness, is an intersubjectively
> reproducible feature of nature which has gone all but ignored in
> the soft sciences resulting from a lot of misconceptions about the
> nature of science itself.
>
> Thanks for your questions.

I detect certain elements of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology in your post.  Is this
what you are basing morality on?

owleye