From: "Phil Roberts, Jr."  
Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01pm 
Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Darwin & Hume's moral sense  

Larry Arnhart wrote:
> 
>
>      Evolutionary psychologists could make important contributions to
> our understanding of morality by following the pattern of Westermarck's
> biological explanation of the incest taboo to explain other areas of our
> moral experience.  Generally, however, they have not done this, because
> they adhere to a rigid Kantian view of morality as expressing a
> transcendent "ought" that must be separated from the empirical facts of
> natural human desires.
> 
> Larry Arnhart
> 

Why couldn't our valuative profile (our moral nature) simply constitute
a maladaptive byproduct of the evolution of rationality itself.  For
example, in Chapter 8 of your book, which I found truly informative,
it is interesting to note that psychopaths also generally tend to
lack concern for their own future wellfare.  Couldn't our moral 
sentiments simply be the result of nature's inability to find tune
our capacity to empathize to include concern for one's own future
while at the same time excluding empathy for others?

                  Phil Roberts, Jr.

Why We Turned Out Like Captain Kirk Instead of Mr. Spock:
      The Psychodynamics of Genetic Indeterminism

     http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/