RE: Evolution cannot account for morality
June 2, 2022 at 4:41 pm
(This post was last modified: June 2, 2022 at 5:14 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(June 2, 2022 at 4:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: And yet there are creatures with both instinct and initiative that we do not take to be moral agents.
Moral agency, as we describe and understand it - is a high bar. Maybe limited just to us and things like us. That’s assuming that there are potential moral observations as a matter of fact, for things like us to see….in the first place.
That’s the entirety of natures contribution to moral values and moral agency, from a realists pov. Giving us eyes to see.
That’s the topline to the opq ( good riddance, fucking moron ). Being able to produce the tools or structures required to assess the other thing…even if the other thing is there( really there) in the absence of such possessions.
I think we unnecessarily complicate and confuse the discussion by introducing the somewhat legalistic concept of agency. Agency seems to me to really be a mental social model that is useful for deciding where to apply social pressure to effectively influence the actions of others. If the others have agency, then you can influence them through social means. It does not help with any Un-presupposing approach to exploring the fundamental roots of actions.