Subject: 
            Re: [evol-psych] Evolutionary psychology, dualism and ethics
       Date: 
            Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:05:51 +0000
      From: 
            Keith Sutherland 
        To: 
            Jeremy Bowman 
        CC: 
            [email protected]
 References: 
            1 , 2 , 3 , 4




In message <000a01c1b558$9145ba20$92f5869f@eircomnet>, Jeremy Bowman 
 writes
>Perhaps the simplest way of understanding an "ought" is to say that it 
>expresses a desire on the part of the speaker. In other words, when I 
>say, "we ought to be kinder to animals" I am expressing my desire that 
>people should behave in less cruel ways.

But that is a very partial view of moral philosophy. Many philosophers 
do seek to ground their "ought" statements in factors other than their 
own desires -- Rawls for example. The attempt to ground ought statements 
in biological facts is certainly no worse than Rawls's tortuous 
calculus, but I don't recall a barrage of critical voices claiming that 
Rawls is guilty of the naturalistic fallacy.
-- 
Keith Sutherland

                            JKB SUTHERLAND, PUBLISHER
      JOURNAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES       HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT
                    CYBERNETICS AND HUMAN KNOWING        POLIS
                IMPRINT ACADEMIC, PO BOX 1, THORVERTON EX5 5YX, UK
        TEL: +44 1392 841600.  Fax: 841478.  EMAIL: [email protected]

                      WWW:  http://www.imprint-academic.com