tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post8858441835999116875..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Part 7 of "Nietzsche's Sociobiology of Animal Morality"Larry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-54764423358161419152013-02-12T18:31:19.959+00:002013-02-12T18:31:19.959+00:00I have written many posts on the is/ought problem....I have written many posts on the is/ought problem. I wrote a series of posts on this in January & February of 2008.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-24954138308030552302013-02-12T16:50:51.130+00:002013-02-12T16:50:51.130+00:00These posts an Nietzsche have been interesting, bu...These posts an Nietzsche have been interesting, but don't really address the main issue in which those who discuss moral philosophy are interested: how should we act and why? If these moral virtues evolved by natural selection, and the end of natural selection is the preservation of ones genes, is the conclusion that we ought to act in a way that best preserves our genes? What about the is/ought problem?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-59368318599233828272013-02-07T20:08:28.909+00:002013-02-07T20:08:28.909+00:00Of course, the human mind did not evolve to find &...Of course, the human mind did not evolve to find "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." If God had created us with a mind that did that, there would not be books like Daniel Kahneman's <i>Thinking Fast and Slow</i> or Dan Ariely's <i>Predictably Irrational</i>.<br /><br />The comic xkcd tackles a related issue:<br /><br />http://xkcd.com/1163/Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-2826972259189405502013-02-07T02:35:33.737+00:002013-02-07T02:35:33.737+00:00Platinga's and Nagel's argument doesn'...Platinga's and Nagel's argument doesn't make sense to me. For the sake of argument they are willing to hypothesize that the mind has been selected for practical success and not true beliefs. They then conclude that evolution is incoherent because it isn't a true belief? There seems to a missing term of their argument. Somewhere they must argue that evolution actually is a true belief. Why wouldn't we just consider the theory of evolution to be just another practical success, when the very first premise of their argument entails that the idea of true beliefs is a fiction itself?Paulnoreply@blogger.com