Could altuism be not necessarily advantageous, but is "carried along"
or inseperable from another trait, such as the ability to plan ahead,
or something else?  To use a loose analogy, the sickle cell trait is
inseperable from malaria resistance, so it continues.



On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:26:13 +0000 (UTC), ragland37{at}webtv.net (Michael
Ragland) wrote:

>
>Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
>
>How can a trait that was developed under the pressure of natural
>selection explain moral actions that go far beyond reciprocal altruism
>or enlightened self-interest? How can, for instance, the action of
>Maximilian Kolbe be explained from a biological point of view? (Kolbe
>was a German priest who starved himself to death in a concentration camp
>to rescue a fellow prisoner.) 
>
>Could not human beings have moved beyond their biological roots and
>transcended their evolutionary origins, in which case they would be able
>to formulate goals in the pursuit of goodness, beauty, and truth that
>"have nothing to do directly with survival, and which may at times
>militate against survival?" (O'Hear, 1997: 203).
>
>Morality is universal, whereas biologically useful altruism is
>particular favoring the family or the group over others. 'Do not kill'
>does not only refer to one's own son, but also to the son of strangers.
>How can evolutionary ethics cope with universality?
>
>Normative ethics aims to be action-guiding. How could humans ever judge
>an action to be ensuring long-term survival? (This is a practical rather
>than conceptual problem for evolutionary ethics.) 
>
>Hume's 'is-ought' problem still remains a challenge for evolutionary
>ethics. How can one move from 'is' (findings from the natural sciences,
>including biology and sociobiology) to 'ought'?
>
>Similarly, despite the length of time that has passed since the
>publication of Principia Ethica, the challenge of the 'naturalistic
>fallacy' remains. 
>
>Evolutionary ethics is, on a philosopher's time-scale, a very new
>approach to ethics. Though interdisciplinary approaches between
>scientists and philosophers have the potential to generate important new
>ideas, evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go. 
>
>Back to Table of Contents
>References and Further Reading
>Darwin, Charles (1871, 1930) The Descent of Man, Watts & Co., London. 
>Fieser, James (2001) Moral Philosophy through the Ages, Mayfield
>Publishing Company, Mountain View California), Chapter 12 "Evolutionary
>Ethics." 
>Hume, David (1740, 1978) A Treatise of Human Nature, Clarendon Press,
>Oxford. 
>Maxwell, Mary (1984) Human Evolution: A Philosophical Anthropology,
>Croom Helm, London. 
>Midgley, Mary (1980) Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature, Methuen,
>London. 
>O'Hear, Anthony (1997) Beyond Evolution: Human Nature and the Limits of
>Evolutionary Explanation, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 
>Ruse, Michael (1995) Evolutionary Naturalism, Routledge, London. 
>Spencer, Herbert (1874) The Study of Sociology, Williams & Norgate,
>London. 
>Wilson, Edward O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard
>University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
>Woolcock, Peter G. (1999) "The Case Against Evolutionary Ethics Today,"
>in: Maienschein, Jane and Ruse, Michael (eds) Biology and the Foundation
>of Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 276-306. 
>Back to Table of Contents
> Author Information: 
>Doris Schroeder 
>Lecturer in Philosophy
>Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy 
>Lancaster University, Furness College 
>Lancaster, LA1 4YG, United Kingdom
> 
>© 2002 
>
>"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
>Bacteria do quite well without it."
> Stephen Hawking
>
>
---
ž RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2į’* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/3/04 6:07:27 AM