tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post4090287146776149757..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Darwinian Marriage (3): An Exchange with Matt FranckLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-62830359690308838672011-02-04T17:11:48.516+00:002011-02-04T17:11:48.516+00:00You have to read Ruth Millikan's "Languag...You have to read Ruth Millikan's "Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories." It is the new locus classicus for understanding teleology Darwinistically. It is a notoriously difficult book, but the account of teleology is laid out in the first two chapters and should be understandable.Empedocleshttp://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-65214424041496241352011-02-03T20:19:26.436+00:002011-02-03T20:19:26.436+00:00Great post.
I would recommend that your interlocu...Great post.<br /><br />I would recommend that your interlocutor read your books, if he has not done so already (and that George do so, as well), so that he can better understand how modern biology is not incompatible with Aristotlean natural right. <br /><br />On marriage: Since it seems that you agree that monogamous marriage and child-rearing is good for men, women, children, and hence society, in the present tense (and, naturally, also necessary and good for a society’s perpetuation and preservation), and since marriage has become less common and more transient over the last generation – for a variety of reasons, presumably, and since this well-chronicled decline in marriage has likely led to an increase in some social pathologies, shouldn’t prudent citizens and statesmen encourage marriage, properly understood, and discourage the opposite (within reasonable bounds that respect natural freedoms)? If so, isn’t it possible that codifying gay marriage adds to confusion about the role and virtue of marriage in a way that goes beyond tolerating homosexuality more broadly and hence adds to the undermining of a good and vital institution? I.e. I assume it is possible and consistent to be against sodomy laws and the like, but against the legalization of gay marriage?<br /><br />-wbondW. Bondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-62452288720868619672011-02-03T11:27:19.996+00:002011-02-03T11:27:19.996+00:00Roger,
Darwinism also tells us what "oughts&...Roger,<br /><br />Darwinism also tells us what "oughts" we are likely to agree on. <br /><br />I argue that most of us are likely to agree on the 20 natural desires as useful or agreeable for ourselves or others (to use a phrase from Hume), because these are rooted in our evolved human nature.<br /><br />And yet, of course, there will be individual variation in these natural desires, which reflects what Aquinas called "temperamental" nature.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-23439928146410323552011-02-03T06:57:40.057+00:002011-02-03T06:57:40.057+00:00I recommend Kenrick et al on Dynamical Evolutionar...I recommend Kenrick et al on Dynamical Evolutionary Psychology:<br /><br />http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/LiLab/KenrickLiButner2003.pdf<br /><br />http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/normanli/KenrickEtAl2002.pdf<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pMwk3haZhioC&oi=fnd&pg=PA137&dq=kenrick+dynamical+evolutionary+psychology&ots=SoMoNxBCAD&sig=nwFuYwV0NQ6Js43ZVeOIKWh_gms#v=onepage&q=kenrick%20dynamical%20evolutionary%20psychology&f=false<br /><br />I think this approach -- which needs to be pursued further (Kenrick admitted to me that his interests tend to be very temporary, so there are only the above on this topic!) -- is potentially vwery fruitful, and (potentially) answers all of these questions.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-35002254129884664462011-02-03T02:00:25.662+00:002011-02-03T02:00:25.662+00:00Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't th...Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't this all come down to Franck saying, "you can't get an ought from an is" and you saying "we can all agree on a few oughts and then what is tells us how to achieve those oughts"?<br /><br />Darwinism tells us "what is" in terms of human nature so we can use it to flesh out our morality--but only because we've already agreed on some moral first principles.Roger Sweenyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12734128265493099062noreply@blogger.com