Subject: 
            Re: [evol-psych] Evolutionary psychology, dualism and ethics
       Date: 
            Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:11:35 -0600 (CST)
      From: 
            "Dave Schmitt" 
        To: 
            [email protected]
        CC: 
            John Cartwright 
 References: 
            1




Quoting John Cartwright :

> I too am surprised that so many in the EP movement 
subscribe to an ontological dualism when it comes to 
ethics. If "ought" statements cannot be deduced, 
inferred or abstracted in some way from "is" 
statements, then where are ought statements obtained 
from? Pure logic and reason cannot by themselves, it 
seems to me, lead us to normative statements. They need 
something ( axioms, value statements, biological facts 
etc) to work upon. If ethics were a matter of logic 
only then I guess we would end up with the same 
normative principles for all species.
 J. Cartwright
 Dept. of  Biology
>


I agree that "ought" statements can and sometimes 
should come from what "is" (or has happened), but not 
necessarily from the "is" of biological adaptation.  

Ought statements can come from a combination of reason, 
logic, the "has happened" lessons of history (including 
religion), and great works of art and literature (e.g., 
Shakespeare).  Of course, all of these things are 
connected with evolved biology in some way.  But I 
think this collection of guideposts will serve us 
better than looking primarily at evolved morality.


Dave Schmitt