Comments on: Whither morality? http://blogs.scienceforums.net/evoanthro/2008/02/10/whither-morality/ A blogs.scienceforums.net weblog on evolution, man and monkey, with miscellany. Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:06:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: CDarwin http://blogs.scienceforums.net/evoanthro/2008/02/10/whither-morality/#comment-8 CDarwin Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:53:51 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/evoanthro/2008/02/10/whither-morality/#comment-8 Alright, like I said, I'm not really critiquing the primary thrust of your essay. I just used that particular quote a launch point to say that the sociobiological approach to understanding morality doesn't demean it. Sorry if I've misused you. Alright, like I said, I’m not really critiquing the primary thrust of your essay. I just used that particular quote a launch point to say that the sociobiological approach to understanding morality doesn’t demean it. Sorry if I’ve misused you.

]]> By: Justin http://blogs.scienceforums.net/evoanthro/2008/02/10/whither-morality/#comment-7 Justin Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:02:44 +0000 http://blogs.scienceforums.net/evoanthro/2008/02/10/whither-morality/#comment-7 Oh no! I wasn't meaning to say that science had absolutely nothing to do with morality, nor was I necessarily trying to "prove the existence of God" with it. (I think that the Argument from Morality is only one piece of a very complicated question/answer session. Alone, it is nothing. When combined with other perspectives, the possibilities are surprising.) The primary point I tried to drive home with my essay was that the philosophical questions of morality are not negated by sociobiology. I firmly hold that there is more to morality than sociobiology, and this "other side" is dealt with in philosophy. I think it's illusory to focus on only one side of the equation. Certainly there are benefits to be had by examining the biological impulses that contribute to our moral natures; on their own, however, they cannot provide us with all the answers. I still think there is a place for all our disciplines – from the Humanities to the Social Sciences to the Physical Sciences and beyond – to come together and develop some sort of cohesion. I don't think we necessarily negate each other. If I didn't make this clear in my essay, I am sorry. My statement "I agree ... that “The Law of Human Nature” has a biological element (the keys on the keyboard). It is not, however, biology. It is philosophy." would be better phrased: I affirm that "The Law of Human Nature" has a biological element (the keys on the keyboard). It is, on its own, not fully competent to address all sides of the Moral Question, the deeper implications of which belong to philosophers. Oh no! I wasn’t meaning to say that science had absolutely nothing to do with morality, nor was I necessarily trying to “prove the existence of God” with it. (I think that the Argument from Morality is only one piece of a very complicated question/answer session. Alone, it is nothing. When combined with other perspectives, the possibilities are surprising.)

The primary point I tried to drive home with my essay was that the philosophical questions of morality are not negated by sociobiology. I firmly hold that there is more to morality than sociobiology, and this “other side” is dealt with in philosophy. I think it’s illusory to focus on only one side of the equation. Certainly there are benefits to be had by examining the biological impulses that contribute to our moral natures; on their own, however, they cannot provide us with all the answers. I still think there is a place for all our disciplines – from the Humanities to the Social Sciences to the Physical Sciences and beyond – to come together and develop some sort of cohesion. I don’t think we necessarily negate each other.

If I didn’t make this clear in my essay, I am sorry. My statement “I agree … that “The Law of Human Nature” has a biological element (the keys on the keyboard). It is not, however, biology. It is philosophy.” would be better phrased:

I affirm that “The Law of Human Nature” has a biological element (the keys on the keyboard). It is, on its own, not fully competent to address all sides of the Moral Question, the deeper implications of which belong to philosophers.

]]>