RE: Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?
February 25, 2022 at 11:50 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2022 at 12:13 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Biological relativism is a descriptive theory of ethics with some observational support which states that all biological creatures ethical intuitions are shaped and informed primarily, perhaps exclusively, by the circumstances of their biology.
We would expect, if this is true, that the universal imperatives of any living creature would be represented in the ethics of every living creature. Killing otherwise ethical and healthy members of our own societies is sometimes seen to be justified. Killing ourselves. Finding this in any species, human or non human, would not be a surprise to us. We ould understand it in other species, even if we disagreed with it (insomuch as we do or may, someday).
Maybe, but touching on the eastern western philosophy thing from before - there we have an example of different ways to think which still reached many of the same conclusions and was recognizable as a similar (if not identical) enterprise by groups that used those different methods. Biological relativism has been suggested as an explanation for that, actually. We found different ways to express ideas we shared.
-just to flesh that out more for you poly. A moral agent that eats will have food ethics. A moral agent that mates will have mating ethics. A moral agent that hunts will have hunting ethics. A moral agent that cultivates will have cultivation ethics. A moral agent that consumes any resource will have ethics pursuant to the organization of those resources, their distribution, possibly (or probably) their defense, etc. From relatively simple creatures that have the bare minimum of moral agency (whatever that is) to highly complex civilizations who cross the stars to ask us "hey, what the fuck is with the stuff on your body?" - if biological relativism is true, it's inconceivable that there would be no moral rosetta stone between any two such species.
We may not find it, we may even be compelled not to find it - functional or ideological xenophobia might be a part of the universal ethics of biological relativism as a product of kin selection, ofc.
We would expect, if this is true, that the universal imperatives of any living creature would be represented in the ethics of every living creature. Killing otherwise ethical and healthy members of our own societies is sometimes seen to be justified. Killing ourselves. Finding this in any species, human or non human, would not be a surprise to us. We ould understand it in other species, even if we disagreed with it (insomuch as we do or may, someday).
(February 25, 2022 at 11:49 am)Angrboda Wrote: I'm not sure there isn't a parallel between ethics and math. You say the aliens would come to the same conclusions in math if given the same axioms, well it's quite likely the same is true of ethics. The problem with the alien test is that philosophy is about thinking and reasoning correctly, so if aliens think and reason differently, they're going to reach different conclusions.
Maybe, but touching on the eastern western philosophy thing from before - there we have an example of different ways to think which still reached many of the same conclusions and was recognizable as a similar (if not identical) enterprise by groups that used those different methods. Biological relativism has been suggested as an explanation for that, actually. We found different ways to express ideas we shared.
-just to flesh that out more for you poly. A moral agent that eats will have food ethics. A moral agent that mates will have mating ethics. A moral agent that hunts will have hunting ethics. A moral agent that cultivates will have cultivation ethics. A moral agent that consumes any resource will have ethics pursuant to the organization of those resources, their distribution, possibly (or probably) their defense, etc. From relatively simple creatures that have the bare minimum of moral agency (whatever that is) to highly complex civilizations who cross the stars to ask us "hey, what the fuck is with the stuff on your body?" - if biological relativism is true, it's inconceivable that there would be no moral rosetta stone between any two such species.
We may not find it, we may even be compelled not to find it - functional or ideological xenophobia might be a part of the universal ethics of biological relativism as a product of kin selection, ofc.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
