Zokusai

I noticed that you are considering editing the Nichomachean Ethics page. Since I have spent so much time reading about it already, I was thinking of doing the same. Let me know if you want to collaborate since we can do group work.

Wikiriker (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

2/20/2015

Instead of doing Nicomachean ethics, I believe I will start working on evolutionary ethics instead. I plan on doing research on ethics observed in other animals in the primate world as well as crows and possibly observations on dolphins. I believe this will help create enough content that I can contribute to the Wikipedia page. I also plan on looking at the Stanford encyclopedia on the subject as they have some good arguments for and against based on different viewpoints by various philosophers. I haven't yet had the opportunity this week to work on the research.

Zokusai (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still looking into which field of evolutionary ethics I would like to go more in depth about. I have yet to find a satisfying article through the library resources and so I have looked on google for now. Here are some of the articles I have began skimming, but have yet to read in depth for inspiration. I will finish these three pages by the end of the week, give a synthesis, and from there decide what I would like to contribute to the Wikipedia article on evolutionary ethics.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/ http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/richards/A%20Defence%20of%20Evolutionary%20Ethics.pdf http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/

Zokusai (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

3/6/2015

I looked up Evolutionary Ethics on Google.

Evolutionary Ethics. Doris Shroeder Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/

Keywords:

naturalistic fallacy

evolution

empirical

Spencer

Darwin

This page is a discussion on the basics of evolutionary ethics. It goes into depth on the Darwin's views on ethics as well as Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism and it's popularity in North America. It then discusses David Hume's is-ought problem which is an idea that you cannot derive an ought from a set of is premises. One of the largest problems with the idea of evolutionary ethics is the naturalistic fallacy, which attempts to equate and define 'good' with other empirically verifiable properties such as pleasure, or success of a species. This page also does a nice job summarizing the problems that Evolutionary Ethics faces at the end of the page.

A Defense of Evolutionary Ethics by Robert J. Richards. http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/richards/A%20Defence%20of%20Evolutionary%20Ethics.pdf

Darwinism

Eugenics

Psychology

Altruism

Moral Theory

Genetics

This is an excerpt from an essay that works to defend the reasoning and soundness of the theory of evolutionary ethics. The author Robert J. Richards attempts to break away from the difficulties that has given evolutionary ethics difficulties earlier such as social darwinism and eugenics. First he discusses the theories that Darwin had on evolution and how it would influence our moral compass by certain behaviors slowly becoming engrained in our social instincts, and causing us to believe certain acts are moral. He then goes on to discuss Edward Willson's moral theory, using various knowledge of genetics and psychology as to why we would do altruistic acts or create a code of conduct that is mutually beneficial. Richards then discusses different common objections to moral theories, expanding on the compatibility of 'selfish genes' and 'genetic altruism.'
Unfortunately I only got half way through the Richards essay and yet to start on the Stanford Encyclopedia, though I have read through the article once before. I plan on completing both this weekend.

Zokusai (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

I plan to insert a piece on the metaethical views that evolutionary ethics provides. I have found that the Wikipedia article on evolutionary ethics comes from an Aristotelian Realist view on ethics, and so to add some perspective I would like to add views from Naturalist philosophers as to the merits of evolutionary theory and it's possible influences on human ethics. I plan on adding this piece after the sub-section entitled Criticisms. Zokusai (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Nice start, Zokusai! Your topic is focused and clear. You will want to find more sources and annotate them. Jbdolphin (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

3/12/2015

Morality and Evolutionary Biology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. William FitzPatrick. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/

Aristotelian
Realist
Moral
metaethically
Antirealism
Skepticism

This encyclopedia entry also has a strong slant towards Aristotelian Realist ethics. FitzPatrick describes normative ethics based on evolution, to be weak at best. Prescriptive ethics is nearly impossible as it has not been easy to describe the "good" in relation to adaptations. Also how can we take these adaptations and prescribe, what is moral actions and what is immoral? The article goes on to describe the trolly versus bridge moral thought experiment and how coupled with evolutionary ethics, could lend support to consequentialist moral philosophy, however as the author is a Aristotelian realist, he quickly attempts to find fault in this argument and attempts to support deontological view. It seems that evolutionary ethics has few legs to stand on when it comes to normative ethics, however metaethically, it can lead to support various viewpoints on ethics.

Evolution can be used to both support and undermine realist views on ethics. Evolution can describe views that we naturally tend towards these moral truths because of evolutionary facts, and thus there is a set of objective moral truths. The theory of evolution also has the potential to undermine moral realism, leading to either skepticism or moral antirealism.

More to come...

Zokusai (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

3/13/2015

I went on Academic search premier, looked up evolutionary ethics. Did not find very many articles, especially once I added to the search metaethics. Just looking at evolutionary ethics I found an interesting article entitled MORALITY AND NATURE: EVOLUTIONARY CHALLENGES TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS, by Tavernier, Johan. It came from the Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. Mar2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p171-189. 19p.

Keywords:

• CHRISTIAN ethics
• PERSONALISM
• HUMAN behavior
• EVOLUTION (Biology)
• INTERSUBJECTIVITY

anthropology Christianity emotions evolutionary biology morality personhood Thomas Aquinas

Johan Travenier starts his discussion on ethics with the discussion of Darwin's timid approach to applying evolution to the development of ethics. Darwin believed that as other animals can show traits such as altruism, anger, grief, joy, etc, this led to the same developments of the ethics that humans display. This caused some outrage in the scientific community at the time as they believed that humans are in many ways above nature. Our ability to reason and go against our urges sets us apart. Travenier then begins to come to the question of what does the acquired knowledge of evolution, tell us about humanities ability to reason and make ethical judgements. In essence, what can evolution tell us about morality. Travenier argues that culture does not bring about morality, i.e. we would be in a state of constant war if not for social contracs. The author writes that cooperation arises naturally, referencing the work of E.O. Wilson (biologist) and de Waal (primatologist and ethologist), using their research to underlie the point that culture and our ethics comes from a long evolutionary process.

This gives rise to the question of where altruism comes in. Many sociobiologists would refer to a game theory describing how a sort or reciprocal altruism can give rise based on the mechanisms of natural selection. However Travenier is quick to point out that it does not have to be a cold and rational assessment of means and ends, and whether or not we can gain the maximum advantage out of it. There is a lot of emotional involvement in these processes, which leads to a sort of mutual cooperation. However a metaethical view based on evolution, greatly downplays our ethical foundation making it much less black and white.

Zokusai (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Nice improvements, Zokusai. You are clearly working to develop a more complete research log here. As you go through and review your work, be sure to edit for typos. Keep up the good work. Jbdolphin (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Rough Draft 1

While evolutionary ethics as a system of normative ethics struggles, as a descriptor of why certain ethical views came to be, it flourishes. As a metaethical claim it does not tell us what is right and wrong, but rather the origiin of our ethical practices come from our evolutionary history. A metaethical view based on evolution greatly downplays our ethical foundations. This tends to lead to a less black and white view on ethical beliefs and leaves much more room for gray areas. Many philosophers who support this view of evolutionary metaethics use it to undermine Aristotelian teleology, and at times moral realism. This is a view that morals are objectively true and do not rely upon a persons thoughts or attitudes. However other philosophers still use evolution to champion moral realism. Often they will argue that there is a set of moral truths and that our behavior naturally tend towards moral truths because of evolution. More often however, it is used to support moral antirealism. This is a belief that moral truths are subjective and often times based on cultural norms, thoughts, and attitudes towards a subject matter rather than a set of mind-independent truths.

Zokusai (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rough draft 2

This will go on the evolutionary ethics page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics, it will go after the section called "Further reading"

While evolutionary ethics as a system of normative ethics struggles, as a descriptor of why certain ethical views came to be, it flourishes. As a meta-ethical claim it does not tell us what is right and wrong, but rather that the origin of our ethical practices come from our evolutionary history. A meta-ethical view based on evolution greatly downplays our ethical foundations. This tends to lead to a less black and white view on ethical beliefs and leaves much more room for gray areas. Many philosophers who support this view of evolutionary meta-ethics use it to undermine Aristotelian teleology, and at times moral realism. This is a view that morals are objectively true and do not rely upon a persons thoughts or attitudes. However other philosophers still use evolution to champion moral realism. Often they will argue that there is a set of moral truths and that our behavior naturally tend towards moral truths because of evolution. More often however, it is used to support moral anti-realism. This is a belief that moral truths are subjective and often times based on cultural norms, thoughts, and attitudes towards a subject matter rather than a set of mind-independent truths.

Zokusai (talk) 9:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Nice first drafts, Zokusai! Now you need to work to make it more accessible for those who may not be as familiar with many of these concepts as you are. There are statements that are on the vague side that need more explanation. For example, the one about the meta-ethical view downplaying "our ethical foundations" assumes we all share one set of ethical foundations that everyone should just know. This is obviously not the case. So what is it you are really trying to say here? Keep working for greater clarity. Jbdolphin (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of Content - David Yim

(Response to draft 3)

Good job linking concepts to larger wikipedia pages. I also liked that your writing, while suitably simple and direct, still contains scholarly complexity. Perhaps break your largest paragraph into two smaller ones for clarity's sake.

-David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahey24 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Rough draft 3

This will go on the evolutionary ethics page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics, it will go after the section called "Further reading"

Evolutionary ethics struggles as a system of normative ethics, which asks the question "what should I do?" It struggles due to the logical fallacy of turning a statement about what is, into one about what we ought to do(see naturalistic fallacy). As a meta-ethical theory, one that tells us the nature of moral judgements, evolutionary ethics can be used as a decent descriptor on why we have certain views on right and wrong. As a meta-ethical claim it does not tell us what is right and wrong, but rather that the origin of our ethical practices come from our evolutionary history. This tends to lead to a less black and white view on ethical beliefs and leaves much more room for gray areas.

Many philosophers who support this view of evolutionary meta-ethics use it to undermine Aristotelian teleology, a belief that we can't reduce things to a the parts that compose them, but the end they are trying to achieve is very important. At times evolutionary ethics is used to undermine moral realism, a view that morals are objectively true and do not rely upon a persons thoughts or attitudes. However other philosophers still use evolution to champion moral realism. Often they will argue that there is a set of moral truths and that our behavior naturally tend towards moral truths because of evolution. More often however, it is used to support moral subjectivism. This is a belief that moral truths are subjective and often times based on cultural norms, thoughts, and attitudes towards a subject matter rather than a set of mind-independent truths. Evolutionary ethics assumes we have a set of basic underlying morals, such as not killing another person. This stems from the evolutionary need to allow the species to survive. Then some of the more graininess of ethics comes from the differences in cultural upbringings and backgrounds, and thus the finer points of ethics would be considered subjective.

Zokusai (talk) 9:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Final draft… maybe

This will go on the evolutionary ethics page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics, it will go after the section called "Further reading"

Evolutionary ethics struggles as a system of normative ethics, which asks the question "what should I do?" It struggles due to the logical fallacy of turning a statement about what is, into one about what we ought to do (see naturalistic fallacy). As a meta-ethical theory, one that tells us the nature of moral judgments, evolutionary ethics can be used as a decent descriptor of why we have certain views on right and wrong. As a meta-ethical claim it does not tell us what is right and wrong, but rather that the origin of our ethical practices come from our evolutionary history. This tends to lead to a less black and white view on ethical beliefs and leaves much more room for gray areas.

Many philosophers who support this view of evolutionary meta-ethics use it to undermine Aristotelian teleology, a belief that we can't reduce things to the parts that compose them, but the end they are trying to achieve is very important. At times evolutionary ethics is used to undermine moral realism, a view that morals are objectively true and do not rely upon a person’s thoughts or attitudes. However other philosophers still use evolution to champion moral realism. Often they will argue that there is a set of moral truths and that our behavior naturally tend towards moral truths because of evolution.

More often however, it is used to support moral subjectivism. This is a belief that moral truths are subjective and often times based on cultural norms, thoughts, and attitudes towards a subject matter rather than a set of mind-independent truths. Evolutionary ethics assumes we have a set of basic underlying morals, such as not killing another person. This stems from the evolutionary need to allow the species to survive. Then some of the more graininess of ethics comes from the differences in cultural upbringings and backgrounds, and thus the finer points of ethics would be considered subjective.

Zokusai (talk) 8:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

COMMENTS

Nice improvements, Zokusai! I have made some very minor edits above. I particularly like your rephrasing "It struggles due to the logical fallacy of turning a statement about what is, into one about what we ought to do." On the other hand, the phrase "Then some of the more graininess of ethics " is a little awkward. I think the word graininess, while I like it, may throw some people off. I would encourage clarity over creativity here--though they are not mutually exclusive. You are ready to post!Jbdolphin (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are ready to post (with minor edits suggested). Jbdolphin (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Final draft

This will go on the evolutionary ethics page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics, it will go after the section called "Further reading"

Evolutionary ethics struggles as a system of normative ethics, which asks the question "what should I do?" It struggles due to the logical fallacy of turning a statement about what is, into one about what we ought to do (see naturalistic fallacy). As a meta-ethical theory, one that tells us the nature of moral judgments, evolutionary ethics can be used as a decent descriptor of why we have certain views on right and wrong. As a meta-ethical claim it does not tell us what is right and wrong, but rather that the origin of our ethical practices come from our evolutionary history. This tends to lead to a less black and white view on ethical beliefs and leaves much more room for gray areas.

Many philosophers who support this view of evolutionary meta-ethics use it to undermine Aristotelian teleology, a belief that we can't reduce things to the parts that compose them, but the end they are trying to achieve is very important. At times evolutionary ethics is used to undermine moral realism, a view that morals are objectively true and do not rely upon a person’s thoughts or attitudes. However other philosophers still use evolution to champion moral realism. Often they will argue that there is a set of moral truths and that our behavior naturally tend towards moral truths because of evolution.

More often however, it is used to support moral subjectivism. This is a belief that moral truths are subjective and often times based on cultural norms, thoughts, and attitudes towards a subject matter rather than a set of mind-independent truths. Evolutionary ethics assumes we have a set of basic underlying morals, such as not killing another person. This stems from the evolutionary need to allow the species to survive. However some of the finer points of our disagreements in ethical conduct comes from the differences in cultural upbringings and backgrounds, and thus would be considered subjective.

Zokusai (talk) 9:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Evolutionary ethics page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)