Talk:Evolutionary ethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Evolution, Psychology and Ethics[edit]

I'm planning to merge most of what was at a page called "Ethics and evolutionary psychology" into this page. I'm grateful to Elembis for saving this content (User:Elembis/Ethics and evolutionary psychology) as I'm bemused as to how the delete discussion decided (weakly) that it wasn't relevant or sourced (granted, the excellent list of source material was listed under 'further reading'). The delete discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics and evolutionary psychology) mentioned some other relevant books that could be added. I don't know if anything was discussed on the article's talk page because the history has gone - I had previously asked there whether the title should be changed.

There's also a far poorer page called Evolutionary ethic that hasn't been deleted, I guess I'll add a delete tag to it shortly. EverSince 10:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the basic subject of that evolutionary ethic page, to the ideas of one apparently non-mainstream author who's written some books relating to the subject[1], could be merged into this page, leaving a redirect. I'm going to do this now and just leave a redirect back at the original page, and also merge in most of the above ev psych content since no objections raised. EverSince 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
John David Garcia did write about evolutionary ethics, but the evolutionary ethic is the view that what is moral is what maximizes creativity. That's a separate concept which I don't think belongs in the article on evolutionary ethics. — Elembis (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I've made a start merging things, obviously very imperfect and needing a lot of work. Re. Garcia I don't really know, but there's lots of vaguely philosophical stuff around that's vaguely related to evolution and ethics, at least in name, where should it all go? EverSince 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit. I've removed the mention of Garcia, since his "evolutionary ethic" is unrelated and the current mention of it relied on a self-published source, and I've put the sources you added in a "Further reading" section, since the article itself doesn't cite them yet (see this edit). — Elembis (talk · contribs) 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary ethiC[edit]

I quickly merged evolutionary ethic here, then decided the content is so poor that I should simply move it here for discussion concerning its relevancy. Here it goes:

Garcia[edit]

The evolutionary ethic, proposed by John David Garcia,[citation needed] holds that the ultimate goal of human life is to maximize total creativity.

Garcia proposed that the evolutionary ethic should become the founding principle of a new society, just as the "libertarian ethic" is the organizing principle of American democracy and the "materialistic ethic" is the organizing principle of Marxism-Leninism.[citation needed]

The "libertarian ethic" holds that the maximization of freedom is the ultimate good.

The "materialistic ethic" holds that the maximization of every person's security—particularly economic security—is the ultimate good.

The evolutionary ethic requires one to look at one's life from a more detached and bloodless perspective than most people are capable of: most people identify strongly with their own happiness and that of their loved ones and will refuse to identify instead with an abstract and impersonal process. Nevertheless, there are people for whom the process that increases the creativity of themselves and those around them is a more essential and immediate part of themselves than their own bodies, comfort and survival are.[citation needed]

Cheers! Lapaz (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Altruism in animals merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was do not merge Altruism in animals into Evolutionary ethics. See also discussion in Altruism in animals -- Jack (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • no way. different topicsSpencerk (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One article seems to be devoted exclusively to humans while the other extends to other animals. But are the topics really different? --Adoniscik(t, c) 13:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don’t think they’re close enough to merge. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge: There is a lot of research undertaken on the topic of altruism in non-human animals and therefore it warrants a separate page. Jack (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Analytic philosophy - structure[edit]

The section Analytic philosophy ends in a (seemingly) extreme POV:

If ethics is just an illusion, that logically leads to amoralism.

First: the statement must be attributed to Ruse (or anyone else), or be deleted. Making it invalid is as simple as breaking the connection between ethics and moral, or declaring that "amoralism" is another moral... Someone have to support the statement (citation needed) in order to make it viable. (Personally I'm beyond logic, so the statement seems very naïve to me!)

Secondly: (imagine a much more humbly tone here) the section treats Ruse only. I guess there are other analytical philosophers that reasons about evolutionary ethics, trying "illusion" or "real" or something inbetween. It would be desirable to have other philosophers' opinion in the section too... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

co-evolution of genes and memes[edit]

I'm not competent to do it, but imho this page needs some discussion about the idea (proposed by Dawkins and many others) that ideas (in this case, morals or ethics) evolve according to Darwin's principle of natural selection.

The page does a pretty good job on the concept that (a) humans' moral sense, and (b) at least some of our morals themselves, are hard-wired; i.e. we have evolved to a point where we have these things inherently. (But, a quibble, Joyce's book should be cited: Joyce, Richard. 2007. The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.) But in the case of morals/ethics, it seems obvious that we learn much of these from our societies. Some of our morality may be natural but much of it is learned. So far, I guess, nobody would disagree.

But what's more interesting is the possibility that the evolutionary paths of both our moral sense and societies' ideas about morality have each been affected by the other. That is, just as a carnivore needs sharp teeth while an herbivore needs flat teeth and maybe a second stomach, certain combinations of our natural and our learned morality exist as they do as a result of co-evolution of each.

As I said, it's not for me to write this, but I think somebody more competent might do so.

Bergsyj (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Joel Bergsman, joel@bergsman.org