Steve, my reasoning is simple: what morality is is best exemplified through observing actual moral discourse, especially that which is culturally formative, rather than imposing an evolutionary theory upon it to say what is "really going on". Even granting the evolutionary premise, not all characteristics are adaptive. Variation and mutation produce all manner of changes: only those so maladaptive that they end in death are weeded out. Thus, there is no good reason to trump actually observed moral discourse with a theory of adaptation.
As far as a cultural theory of adaptation goes, it only explains the minima, not the maxima, such as art and literature, and it is unfaithful to the way that people actually react in situations like the Holocaust, where they are not involved in extrapolative reasoning, but sheer horror at injustice. Now, you admit that there are other ends that man may pursue, but call them "self- selected", which is partly true. It is, however, partly false, because there is a in almost all instances a common element to the various ends that are pursued, which is the humanizing of the environment, and development of human talents, to the extent that opportunity permits.
But, of course, I have already made these arguments........ |
