summerof2010 said:
Very, very good rebuttal. I daresay you've made my day. I'm pursuing a double major in philosophy and mathematics at my university right now, actually, so I am at least vaguely familiar with ethics and the various theories about it. I actually started from a subjective view point, and I've been continuously having that view challenged, and very well. I've been moving more toward a normative sort of understanding of ethics. When I read about the anthropological argument for an objective ethical theory, I was taught to reject it, because it's a naturalistic fallacy. However, I always thought there was something to it, just on the other side of the debate. It seems like there are moral facts because we're programmed to think there are. You've written what I intuitively understood. I would love to hear more about it, if you have the time.
Though, I'm much more into the logic side of things, especially right now with the classes I'm taking, and I'm only in my second year. Forgive me if I'm not as receptive as better philosophers would be.
You seem plenty receptive to me! I think you're the first person I've ever said something substantial to on the internet that didn't say something like either "You sound pretentious, shut up" or "TLDR"... So yeah, then. Here's some starter stuff on what I was talking about.
If you're looking to get into the literature of morality as evolved, then you've got an interest in the field of moral psychology (which sometimes overlaps with evolutionary psychology). I recommend starting with some stuff by Jonathan Haidt (http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/). His article "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail" is very interesting, though should be taken with more than a single grain of salt. His conclusions tend to be a bit extravagant by comparison to the data he draws them from.
Frans deWaal is a famous dutch primatologist who works on linking human moral behaviors more closely to chimpanzees.
Jessica Flack & Frans deWaal: 'Any Animal Whatever', Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7:1-2, pp. 1-29.
That's a good article by him to start with. Otherwise, good authors include Elliott Sober, David Sloan Wilson, Dan Kelly, and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. They're all writing on cooperation, evolution, ethics, or something related to those.
As for the idea of moral facts... I might not be the best person to talk to. I can confidently say that arguments for moral realism are more than problematic, but I may also be a bit biased. The idea that there are moral facts as a result of a genetically-determined human proclivity to believe in them, though, is again an argument from belief (just everyone believing something as opposed to one person; if everyone thinks the earth is flat, that doesn't make it true).
Moral facts (as per a moral realist stance) are ostensibly actual existing things. If morality is objective in a realist manner, then it would therefore be the case that certain acts bore a real property (that is probably a secondary quality) of being right or wrong (like being blue or hard). That suggests that right-ness and wrong-ness would be (somehow) observable things, despite the fact that those properties are also supposed to motivate us to take or avoid action (something being blue doesn't really have the same effect as something being wrong).
That idea is more than a little strange, at least so it seems to me (and more than a few others). If you want to go for objective morality, though, I'm not going to stop you. There are a wealth of philosophers who argue for it, none of whom are by any means stupid. They all make excellent points and ultimately help propel what is an evidently important discussion: namely, what exactly it is for something to be good or bad. H*ll, maybe they're even right! I personally doubt it, but it's a possibility.
There are views that assert ethical objectivity that are nevertheless non-realist, though. It seems to me that such views have a far greater chance of hitting on something correct. They would also be a lot closer to the idea of 'objective morality through universal human nature', if that's what you're looking for. If so, you may consider reading some Jesse Prinz. His book
The Emotional Construction of Morals is excellent. I highly suggest it as a read. He's *heavy* metaethics, though, so watch you're step; it's thick stuff.
Anyway. I hope that helps. I'm sort of new on the Escapist and don't really know if there is a friends thing or something. If so, feel free to add me sometime and we can chat more. It's a blast to actually meet somebody online who is both intelligent and interested!
So, again, happy hunting, and I hope to talk with you again.
