Cc: evol-pscyhFrom: Mark Flinn Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 11:42:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Evolution of morality There is a fine distinction between the 'is vs. ought' naturalistic fallacy and what we are discussing here. A current understanding of moral systems, based on evolutionary theory (e.g., Alexander 1987), does not suggest that what exists in biological reality ('is') has a higher moral standing ('ought'). We are trying to move beyond the old Spencerian ideas. The anti-sociobiology groups that tried to discredit evolutionary approaches with those political tactics were wrong. But that is not to say that 'ought' does not have a scientific underpinning. Folk beliefs are not random, and unless we want to place our unquestioning faith in the Koran or the Bible or the Shaman of your choice, then we need to try and understand why humans have 'oughts'. [snipped] -- Mark Flinn Department of Anthropology University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211 (573) 882-9404