tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post1819706159684233231..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: The Shame of Calvin & Rusejohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-62479177584222190382011-07-25T20:55:21.064-07:002011-07-25T20:55:21.064-07:00Hatsoff
The problem is not that of attaching mean...Hatsoff<br /><br />The problem is not that of attaching meaning to the phrase "stealing is wrong". The question is <em> why </em> stealing should be considered wrong. Ruse argues that such moral rules evolved only because of their evolutionary usefulness, not because of any deeper moral standard. The same applies to rational rules. As a result, he rejects the correspondence view of truth: that a belief is true if it corresponds to what is actually the case. It is enough for Ruse that his beliefs cohere and provide useful results.<br /><br />But then he can hardly assert his evolutionary views are true in the sense that they correspond to what actually happened in the distant past.John Bylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-70536776085425272082011-07-25T11:58:31.835-07:002011-07-25T11:58:31.835-07:00Hatsoff
It seems fairly plain to me that we can fi...<b>Hatsoff</b><br /><i>It seems fairly plain to me that we can fix meanings to our moral terms regardless of our genetic provenance.</i><br /><br />Who's the 'we'? Are you assuming that society in general can come to agreement on moral terms?Steve Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17435371814330595643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-73434178964537003242011-07-25T03:37:37.058-07:002011-07-25T03:37:37.058-07:00I don't think we should just take Ruse's w...I don't think we should just take Ruse's word for it that accepting evolution means that moral language has no objective meaning. It seems fairly plain to me that we can fix meanings to our moral terms regardless of our genetic provenance. And once this meaning has been fixed, it will hold independent of any human opinion---i.e. it will take on some sense of objectivity.<br /><br />Maybe you want to say that it is objective in some deeper sense. But then I would be curious, in what sense is the meaning of our moral terms somehow more deeply objective than the meaning of other terms, say, "table" and "chair" for instance?Ben Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.com