Subject: 
            Re: [evol-psych] Evolutionary psychology, dualism and ethics
       Date: 
            Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:45:06 +1100
      From: 
            "Steven D'Aprano" 
        To: 
            Keith Sutherland , [email protected]
        CC: 
            [email protected]
 References: 
            1 , 2 , 3




On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 21:52, Keith Sutherland wrote:
> In message ,
> Hilary Fisher  writes
>
> >Evolutionary psychology, as a science, investigates what "is". The
> > confusion seems to arise because what humans consider to be an
> > "ought" is also an "is", one which is particularly relevant to
> > evolutionary psychology.
>
> EP is built on the darwinian insight that survival ("is") is selected
> for ("ought"). Although one can argue as to exactly what sort of
> teleology is implied, I don't see how the absolute is/ought dualism
> advocated by ethicists and philosophers is compatible with the EP
> paradigm.

That is a non sequitur. Just because (eg) photosynthesis _is_ selected
for, doesn't mean that photosynthesis _ought_ to be selected for.

"Ought" includes moral and ethical value judgements that don't follow 
from any Darwinian analysis. To do otherwise is to promote "reproductive
success" from one of many values to the only value.

Even if this were not the case, there are many paths to reproductive 
successive. If photosynthesis is an "ought", then what does that say 
about those organisms that lack photosynthesis?



-- 
Steven D'Aprano