The American Scene points me to two Will Wilkinson posts where he attempts to move beyond vulgar evolutionary psychology in adducing proper morality. I learn toward the sentiment. The naturalistic fallacy is less fallacious when one conceptualizes human moral intuitions and reflections as a rubics cube with a finite number of elements. In other news, most Americans do not look to religion to guide their opinions about right & wrong.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
The naturalistic fallacy is “less fallacious” when one conceptualizes human moral intuitions and reflections as a rubics cube with a finite number of elements.”
What? Unbelievable.
A logical fallacy is a fallacy. A fallacy applies across all modal worlds, in all situations.
I realize “Secular Right” admires the Atheist Hero David Hume, who applied his atheist presuppositions in full force and, as a result, attempted to eliminate the law of cause-and-effect, the laws of logic, laws of morality, and the Enduring Self…….but he was mistaken.
Besides, you can’t have evolution and morality threads if Hume is right, unless you desire to be inconsistent and call a fallacy “not a fallacy.”
Not quite sure what you’re getting at here, but in comment on Wilkinson’s posts, I think the logical conclusion is ultimately a variation on utilitarianism.
After all, most animals don’t use anything like morality, because from a Darwinian perspective, they don’t NEED morality– it provides them with no benefits, either individually or as a “society”.
But the more advanced and more social animals get, the more something approaching morality appears. Dogs, apes, etc. all have rudimentary social orders that utilize social mores.
Assuming there is no higher power, human morality is useful and enduring insofar as it is a FUNCTIONAL morality that creates some obvious benefit, either for the individual, or for the ordered society. We tend to believe that murder is wrong not because murder is bad, but because murder is *unhelpful* in most situations. Ditto lying, theft, adultery, etc.
A lot of folks get freaked out by that, I don’t know why. We all want a TRUTH, but there is only a relative truth (not relativism– our societites construst evolving functional moralities all the time, that does not mean that going against such functional moralities is necessarily the wisest choice at any one moment in time).
The Wilkinson “fill in the blanks vs. blank slate” dichotomy is a nice distinction. From a biological standpoint, there may be moralities that are simply “easier” and more effective for human beings regardless of where they exist, all because our genes lend themselves to those moralities. Intelligent bees would have a far different feeling about what constitutes love, marriage and infidelity than pair-bonding hairless apes, after all.