Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An evolutionary debunking, sometimes referred to as an evolutionary debunking argument or evolutionary debunking thesis, is a philosophical argument which holds that, because humans (like all organisms) have an evolutionary origin, the principles of ethics and morality that we have devised are invalid and cannot be considered objective knowledge.
Related to the argument from morality is the argument from conscience, associated with eighteenth-century bishop Joseph Butler and nineteenth-century cardinal John Henry Newman. [8] Newman proposed that the conscience, as well as giving moral guidance, provides evidence of objective moral truths which must be supported by the divine. He argued ...
For under Mackie's view, if there are to be moral properties, they must be objective and therefore not amenable to differences in subjective desires and preferences. Moreover any claims that these moral properties, if they did exist would need to be intrinsically motivating by being in some primitive relation to our consciousness. They must be ...
But such qualities are precisely those that lie at the core of any plausible theory of objective moral truth. So Street's alleged "dilemma"—deny evolution or embrace moral skepticism—is a false choice. [13] A second response to Street is to deny that morality is as "saturated" with evolutionary influences as Street claims.
That phrase was his view of the consequences for rejecting theism as a basis of ethics. American anthropologist Ruth Benedict argued that there is no single objective morality and that moral codes necessarily vary by culture. [16] Ethical subjectivism is a completely distinct concept from moral relativism. [17]
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals", [1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other distinguishing feature. [2]
An alternative definition of Hume's law is that "If P implies Q, and Q is moral, then P is moral". This interpretation -driven definition avoids a loophole with the principle of explosion . [ 6 ] Other versions state that the is–ought gap can technically be formally bridged without a moral premise, but only in ways that are formally "vacuous ...
Theory of mind as defined by Martin Brüne, is the ability to infer another individual's mental states or emotions. [19] Having a strong theory of mind is tied closely with possessing advanced social intelligence. Collectively, group living requires cooperation and generates conflict.