(September 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm)Michael Wrote: I don't find evolutionary arguments speak to 'good' and 'bad'. Because science doesn't deal with 'oughts', I don't find much of substance in science about 'morality'. At most science engages with 'behaviours'. There's nothing inherently 'bad' about murderous behaviour. Indeed it is common in biology. So when people talk about evolution of morality; I rather see something that is talking about evolution of behaviours that has had to be separated from any notion of there being real 'good' and 'evil'. It is not morality as understood by philosophers across the ages. The philosopher, the poet, and the theologian are exploring something that is largely outside of the purview of science. I say those things as a scientist who loves science (I just don't see science as the only way we ever know anything).
Can I ask, then, how notions of good and bad are defined, if they aren't related to actions and the consequences of them?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
