(September 5, 2012 at 4:47 pm)genkaus Wrote: On the contrary, teleology seeks to apply a purpose and by extension an ought to all things. The goal strategies would work fine even outside the teleological framework. As for the competing oughts, that'd would be one of the problems for the science of morality to solve.
That's just ignoring the problem. Completely. How would science settle the question of competing oughts? Science doesn't deal with oughts it deals with what is, with facts not values. It is the very move to teleology which gets around the problem precisely by reintroducing an aristotelian approach to science, which included oughts. The only person I know of who has taken this route is Alasdair MacIntyre, a Roman Catholic Thomistic philosopher. It's not the kind of thing most naturalists would want to sign up to. Without the inbuilt oughts of aristotelianism, even if science can tell us everything about what "is" in the world there will always be a conceptual gap concerning questions of oughts.
As for the other stuff, well, if you aren't a dualist, the quibble about psychology versus biology (neuroscience) seems a strange one to me.
