Re: meta-ethics or ethology

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:50:30 -0500

If you believe that humans are 98+% identical genetically to the
bonobo monkeys then you must believe that it is today's genetics -
period. The reductionistic biological sciences found a number of
observational results and explained them within the boundaries so
far drawn around (this) science - believeing that "that's all to it".
Well, compare the epistemic cognitive invetory of 1000 AD with
ours at 2000 AD and extrapolate 3000 AD (Oho!) whether it will
be more than ours today?????
(This is not a criticism towards today's TOE, it is only a remark on
the (genetical) identiy as many people take it from biology. I also
skip connotations to the very debatable 'ethix' or 'morality' fictions).

Planet of the apes?

 Regards
John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "CMR" <jackogreen.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: meta-ethics or ethology


> Greetings,
>
> > > Some previous posts in the current thread have attacked this idea by,
> > > for example, explaining ethics in terms of evolutionary theory or game
> > > theory, but this is like explaining a statement about the properties
> > > of sodium chloride in terms of the evolutionary or game theoretic
> > > advantages of the study of chemistry. Yes, you can legitimately talk
> > > about ethics or chemistry in these terms, but in so doing you are
> > > talking meta-ethics or meta-chemistry, which I think is what Bruno
> > > means by "level shift".
> > >
>
> Perhaps, but this view speaks to the rift between those that approach
human
> behavior as being different in kind from other animals and those that see
it
> as instead different in degree. The latter, myself included, find the
study
> of ethology (animal behavior) and animal ecology as directly applicable to
> humans and in those very real fields of study, interpretiing behavior in
> the context of fitness is standard procedure. So in that sense examining
> human behavior in that same context can be seen as a legitimate extension
of
> ethology and/or animal ecology, as opposed to some form of
meta-psychology,
> ..anthropology, ..sociology etc..
>
> We share 98%+ of our genetic heritage with bonobo chimps. Many researchers
> credit our cousins with primitive language capacity, tool usage, and even
> self-awareness. I doubt, though, that many would find interpreting chimp
> behavior in the context of fitness to be un-orthodox in anyway. Indeed it
is
> the norm.
>
> Cheers
> CMR
>
Received on Fri Jan 30 2004 - 17:06:46 PST