View Single Post
Old 07-05-2010, 10:29 AM   #646
WT Sharpe
Bah, humbug!
WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.WT Sharpe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
WT Sharpe's Avatar
 
Posts: 39,072
Karma: 157049943
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason View Post
I don't see how this overcomes the objection. Indeed, I do not see that your use of the term 'natural' differs in any crucial way from my own. If our ethical determinations spring from our being in the world, then they have no more than local extent.

Take one example of how our brain/body system interacts with its environment: the blood feud. We know that for millennia human beings have acted upon the principle that injury done to one member of a group is injury done to all, and that there is no distinction to be made between the aggressor and other members of his group. If a member of your family is injured by the member of another family, then all members of the other family are legitimate targets of your wrath.

Now, there are excellent biological reasons why this should be so (you may look at Daly and Wilson's book 'Homicide' for a rehearsal of these). But I have to doubt that anyone on this list would accept a moral principle that says you have a right to harm your neighbour's son if your neighbour has harmed you.
This may be the biological basis behind the prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:2 (New Revised Standard version) that "Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD." (Sorry, bub. If your great great great great great great great grandparents weren't married, you can't join our church!)

Ezekiel—who came later and had a slightly more cosmopolitan view of morality, possibly as a result of the Babylonian captivity—didn't believe in punishing the children for their father's sins: "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live." (Ezek. 18:19, NRS.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason View Post
Similarly, female infanticide is a practice which can be shown to contribute to lineage fitness under certain circumstances (for a discussion of this, see Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's 'Mother Nature'). Indeed, it seems likely that any lineage which did *not* pursue this practice in the mountain areas of Northern India and of Pakistan would very quickly have lost its status, its lands, its means of subsistence. Once again, it seems unlikely that anyone here will uphold a principle that makes such behaviours morally desirable.

One could continue with similar examples. It is very easy indeed to demonstrate that our species being cannot be, in and of itself, a guide to present moral practice.
With that I agree. You can't derive an ought from an is. Biology has played a role in how our ethical systems formed, but it shouldn't be the sole consideration in creating a fair and just system. Reason should be made to complement and enhance our natural tendency toward empathy with other living beings in our efforts to create a more perfect world.

Last edited by WT Sharpe; 07-05-2010 at 10:45 AM.
WT Sharpe is offline   Reply With Quote