Comments

  • What Constitutes A Philosopher?
    (2 water molecules) — CallMeDirac

    Saying something doesn't make it true. I wouldn't call you a philosopher or a serious thinker looking at your posts. Someone curious and likely to dig further in the future? Yes. Go for it! I wish you the best even though it may sound like I am not offering much encouragement here.

    I don't waste time sugarcoating things for people as I don't think it is useful for them.
  • What Constitutes A Philosopher?
    Just writing doesn't make one a writer, writing as a hobby and writing simply because one enjoys writing makes one a writer. — CallMeDirac

    In one way yes. In another no. If no one reads it then you're not really much of a writer and people would probably say that you think you're a writer rather than actually call you a writer.

    I would still say of such a person that they enjoy writing though and encourage them to do what they enjoyed. That doesn't make them a writer in everyone's view though unless we're talking on a superficial level.
  • What Constitutes A Philosopher?
    ↪CallMeDirac
    This reminds me a bit of people saying they are a writer simply because they have written something. There needs to be a degree of understanding and ability within a certain area to claim reasonable ownership of the label.

    There are situations where someone with no formal training in something are particularly good at it - say a mechanic. In those circumstances I have no issue with calling someone a mechanic if they can fix several broken cars without any issues. In terms of philosophy I wouldn't call someone who has literally never read a single work of philosophy from cover to cover a philosopher under any circumstances just like I wouldn't call someone a mechanic merely if they have only read books about how to fix cars.

    This may seem contradictory in some terms, but to someone who has read enough philosophy and/or has a reasonably decent analytic mind they can see what I am getting at here. That is the 'practice' of philosophy requires engagement with current ideas be they oppositional or otherwise (oppositional is likely more fruitful though).

    Contemplating the meaning of life is nothing at all if there is no give and take. For two people in a room discussing such we could say what they are doing is 'philosophical' but that doesn't make them philosophers. Perhaps they are on their way to becoming more involved with philosophy but the threshold from not being a philosopher to being one is not really a line at all any more than we can say with any conviction that x amount of water molecules are needed for water to be considered 'wet'.
  • Antinatalism and the harmfulness of death
    ↪Bartricks
    I feel sorry for the horse.
  • Basic Questions for any Kantians
    ↪T Clark
    I'm glad I seemed to have managed to express this well enough to make sense (for a change!).

    It is probably one of the most common misconceptions of Kant's work I come across and some people just cannot see it likely because it is so blindingly obvious and they don't see the importance of stating something so obvious. Others are just atheists or theists trying to force views upon others by taking his words and terms out of context to justify some silly political view.
  • The Decline of Intelligence in Modern Humans
    ↪L'éléphant
    Again, I can argue the opposite with just as much force so I don't see a way saying much decisively.

    Plus the world is not 'overpopulated' nor does that seem likely to happen. It terms of resource management there is certainly room for improvement. Germany has scraped nuclear energy which is most certainly a backwards step in terms of efficiency and general pollution. There are political games at play and society at large seems to be struggling with adapting to mass communications.

    As with the industrial revolution I see something similar happening now with the internet revolution. Lots of doom and gloom that will likely amount to nothing much other than a flash in the pan. The CRISPR revolution is going to be something far beyond my comprehension and I'll see its birth in the world of commerce before I die most likely.
  • Basic Questions for any Kantians
    We cannot talk of, or about, a 'thing' that we're at base level incapable of experiencing. It is not an it, it has no 'thinghood'.

    Our world, our entire world, is phenomenon. Noumenon in a positive sense isn't anything we have any relation to and as we are here talking about 'noumenon' it is only in the negative sense as a marker for the limitation of our sensible experience (sensible in the terms of how Kant uses the term 'sensible' ... experienced).

    If there was noumenon then we wouldn't be able to refer to it or articulate it in any form. Think about it a little. The thing-in-itself cannot be referred to on those terms in any way that makes any sense. It is only our habit of inferring that leads to the belief in some 'otherness' that is beyond our realms of comprehension ... but if some said item is beyond our realm of comprehension then our merely stating the possibility of some item is referring to some item and that is contrary to the said item being 'beyond comprehension'.

    We can talk of a square circle and conjure up some image merely by stating it. Stating something gives it authority even though it is a construct based on experience.

    I cannot do much better than that without writing a helluva lot more ... I don't want to right now, so hope that gives you food for thought at least.
  • Basic Questions for any Kantians
    Following Kant, we obviously construct the phenomenal world we know out of the noumenal world in some way - presumably from the sensations which present themselves to our consciousness. — Tom Storm

    No. Let me find the only quote that matters here ...

    "The concept of noumenon is, therefore, only a limiting concept, and intended to keep claims of sensibility within proper bounds, and is therefore only of negative use. But it is not mere arbitrary fiction; rather, it is closely connected with the limitation of sensibility, though incapable of positing anything positive outside the sphere of sensibility."

    - B311,312/A256

    In short there is no noumenon other than the concept used in relation to phenomenon applicable ONLY in a negative sense.
  • The Decline of Intelligence in Modern Humans
    @L'éléphant Apologies. I was lazy that day and didn't bother to read the OP :D

    What you have posed is a possibility but we can argue the opposite too. How can we measure this realistically? I don't think we can as there are far to many factors involved and many cognitive abilities are not exactly well understood by any means.

    For the sake of arguing against I could suggest that agriculture allowed us to free up our time and work together in groups more easily (specialisation). Of course there are counter argument to this too as there is reasonable evidence to suggest that human collaborated on a pretty large communal scale prior to the full blown advent of sedentary living and/or agriculture.

    I would also argue that 'intelligence' for humans is something that expands due to better lines of communication and interaction (something that has become increasingly prominent in the modern era), but again I could offer up an opposing view that may partially agree with this overall, yet question whether or not there is an optimal amount of 'communication and interaction' and that too much of this would actually start to reverse progress.

    Finally, one more part of this puzzle ... education and pedagogy at large. We seem to have struggled to adapt our education facilities to changing times of late. The industrial revolution had, in my view, a partly detrimental effect upon education standards as it copied and pasted the 'factory' method by viewing schools as factories for employable citizens. In our times now I think this has mostly been realised, yet not by any means addressed fully. Now we have a weird social landscape in which there seems to be a growing inclination to throw the baby out with the bathwater in terms of educational syllabuses and the general view of pedagogy at every stage from primary school to university (although the latter is a little more robust imo).

    Less intelligent? I don't think so but it could be true; in terms of genetic predisposition. I think it is more about our educational systems lagging behind population growth, political shifts and trends, and increasing technological advancements that we've had little time to fully utilise.
  • Solutions for Overpopulation
    Seems like people are oblivious to the fact that this isn't a problem. As Frank states the population will plateau (likely at around 10 or 11 billion after getting up to maybe 14 billion).

    The planet can sustain that many people. If not something called 'death' soon deals with the problem. There is absolutely no reason to believe that overpopulation is an issue other than we're likely to have to address what people are going to do with themselves ... that is a slight worry but people awaken eventually

    In terms of food and farming there isn't an issue. The same kind of doom and gloom happened in the 70's I believe then suddenly there was enough grain to feed everyone and still is. Although there are still people starving on Earth today the percentage of the population suffering in this manner has dramatically decreased and there is nothing I can see that is going to reverse this trend any time soon.

    I believe such talk stems from some psychological condition we go through at a certain age/maturity in our lives. Perhaps all this talk has more to do with personally coming to terms with our own mortality and projecting out into the world at large?
  • The Decline of Intelligence in Modern Humans
    ↪L'éléphant
    My general point was that in a crowd the loudest voice is easier to hear. Societies today are based around larger and larger sections and groupings whom people feel the need to associate to.

    You have a far better chance to be hear and gain support among ten people than amongst one hundred.

    If you were not born with high IQ, develop your will. — L'éléphant

    As someone else notes there is a difference between IQ and being intelligent I think? At least in general parse. Even so, those with top heavy 'g' (the element IQ tries to measure) tend more towards caution and people en masse usually side with promises rather than estimations with nuance attached the more pressing the problem/subject is.
  • The Decline of Intelligence in Modern Humans
    Even if we have smaller brains now that doesn't make us less intelligent. This is a common misconception.

    We have domesticated ourselves which could possibly have effected our cognitive abilities as it has with other domesticated animals ... but we were actively selecting in those cases so maybe not the best comparison.

    One thing I think we should take into account is that smart people will likely shine brighter within a certain population range. In a group of ten people the smartest will likely be clear, whereas in a group of more, at some point, they may not shine as bright.

    The smartest human in the world today will probably not be appreciated by m/any around them beyond those close to them. In smaller groups the ability to shine is more easily recognised.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Main point being I find this whole thing more and more disturbing by the second. I'm much more concerned here than with what happened with Yugoslavia at that time (and that was pretty nasty!). — I like sushi
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪ssu


    I'm not here to debate one way or the other as this is not a pleasant situation. I just tend to not to assume too much nor get drawn into one camp or another when it comes to these kinds of disputes. — I like sushi
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Main point being I find this whole thing more and more disturbing by the second. I'm much more concerned here than with what happened with Yugoslavia at that time (and that was pretty nasty!).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪ssu
    I'm not saying it is logical.

    The way Biden has spoken sounds a lot like they are trying to provoke/encourage Putin into a war. The remarks made don't seem sensible to me and so I assume they are doing exactly what they want them to do. Why? no idea. Even the Ukrainian leader has asked them to tone it down.

    Undoubtedly there is a lot going on we don't know about. I do know Putin has remained fairly consistent regarding his dislike of NATO expansion and has not exactly been undiplomatic in his tone by repeatedly pointing out that he has been concerned about the creep of US military forces ... apparently that was a condition the US has offered to them but I think it has come to the imminent threat of war for the US to even bother doing that ... so, yeah. It looks to me like they are asking for it.

    As for annexing Crimea there was a whole lot of unhanded US and Russian business going on in the Ukraine at the time where both were actively in disagreement about the Ukraine's position as a kind of 'buffer state' between Russia and the West.

    Anyway, we could argue and disagree forever. I'm not here to debate one way or the other as this is not a pleasant situation. I just tend to not to assume too much nor get drawn into one camp or another when it comes to these kinds of disputes.

    Both the US and Russia have some serious hang ups over the results from WW2 and the people in the area are still very much in the grip of what has passed since then and will remain stuck in it for another century or so ... I just hope 'nationhood' ends for a positive reason rather than as a final hurrah.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Judging by the latest news it looks like there will be war sadly.

    If NATO is meant to be about protecting and preventing war then perhaps they should not look to expand towards the only country they deem as a threat and wait a few more generations so the nonsense of the Cold War is a memory or a memory rather than recalled by those playing power games right now?

    Of course this won't happen so either the Ukrainian government will ease off or Russia will wreck the Ukraine one way or another in order to prevent NATO expansion.

    I think war is pretty much what the US government is looking for. Why? Who knows. Maybe it is not Russia looking to destabilase Europe?

    Either way this is looking unlikely to blow over as I first thought unless the media reports are exaggerating the tone of what is going on.
  • What Constitutes A Philosopher?
    ↪Garrett Travers
    Someone who annoys people consistently and constantly with things they find 'interesting' or 'intriguing'.

    The rest is academic pomposity most of the time and playing with ego conflation.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    There is a good deal of information here on the subject:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Bitter Crank
    I think it is basically down to what the Ukraine government decides to do regarding setting up future military camps in their country. Russia has repeatedly stated - truthfully or otherwise - that they are concerned with the US creeping closer and closer to their border with missile sites capable of hitting their capital and ask how the US would feel if they started do the same to them (think Cuban missile crisis).

    If the Ukrainian leaders want to flex then I think it will be a mistake. If they can make an independent deal with the US and Russia regarding military placement within their borders then it will all blow over and nothing will happen for a few years. If they insist on joining NATO with no conditions (something apparently against an agreement Russia had with US?) allowing military creep towards Russia I expect we'll see more proxy wars spark up around the globe soon enough involving China and Russia ... that would be how I would 'go to war' without having to 'go to war'.

    Overall the threat from NATO is just sanctions. I think that is just code for something else though as if it was ONLY about threatening sanctions if they invaded I think Russia would happily invade and take the sanctions - they don't need trade with Europe or US really.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Manuel
    Yes. Some people simply want to focus on Putin as the singular reason for the turbulence.

    I'm by no means siding with Russia or NATO. I just know the whole thing has very little to do with the actual people and there is a lot of politicking involved all over (France and Germany are being tested it seems). The ball is in Russia's court and they are in the better position.

    They did let people vote in Ukraine. Guess what? Pro-Russia candidates were given the boot. Since that unpleasantness over Crimea and the ongoing war in Donbass, Ukrainians' attitudes have shifted significantly, and not in Russia's favor. — SophistiCat

    Ukrainian attitudes in what section of the country?

    From wiki:

    The two main candidates were neck and neck in the first-round vote held on 31 October 2004, winning 39.32% (Yanukovych) and 39.87% (Yushchenko) of the votes cast. The candidates who came third and fourth collected much less: Oleksandr Moroz of the Socialist Party of Ukraine and Petro Symonenko of the Communist Party of Ukraine received 5.82% and 4.97%, respectively. Since no candidate had won more than 50% of the cast ballots, Ukrainian law mandated a run-off vote between two leading candidates. After the announcement of the run-off, Oleksandr Moroz threw his support behind Viktor Yushchenko. The Progressive Socialist Party's Natalia Vitrenko, who won 1.53% of the vote, endorsed Yanukovych, who hoped for Petro Simonenko's endorsement but did not receive it.

    I don't know for certain but I'd bet the voting was divided between Russian speakers in the East and Ukrainian speakers in the West.

    War has been ongoing since this time I believe. With both US and Russia supplying men and arms to the fight (although both denied doing so).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪pfirefry
    There is plenty of sense in Russia’s view that the US has been steadily encroaching on Russian territory. The US has no good reason to help strengthen Europe and the most powerful nations play a game to keep the status quo not to bring others up to their level.

    I think this will fizzle out. US will back off eventually and pretend they didn’t (kind of like Vietnam). If Ukraine joins NATO I don’t see things getting better any time soon.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The Ukraine is a nation split right down the middle in terms of the views and cultural make up of the people. Crimea is/was basically made up of Russian speaking pro Russian people and the eastern half of Ukraine is basically the same.

    If they just let people vote maybe the war would finally end. Instead it has been another ongoing proxy war between Russia and US.

    I think both sides are wrong btw. Ukraine should never have existed in its current form due to the opposing positions of the people within its borders.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    ... it remains a fact that power corrupts ... — Olivier5

    ↪Olivier5
    You expressed an opinion and called it a fact. It should bother you far more than it should bother me I hope.
  • Ad Interim Philosophy
    ↪Agent Smith
    I thought philosophy was basically diagnostics? You and apply and view different methods for some problem/question as well as exploring the question and the method underlying the origins of the question/s.

    Diagnostics is more or less about presenting possible solutions/factors for a given case. The decision is not really about arriving at a conclusion it is about allowing us to make a next step in order to narrow, or open, our field of investigation (this is what happens in medicine too where a procedure that will not help the patient directly will reveal new information that shuts down or opens up new possibilities).
  • Should Money Be Stripped from the Ideal Evaluation of Arts?
    ↪D2OTSSUMMERBUG
    Fashion is fashion. The youth is prone to appearing 'fashionable' and being 'fashionable' may mean despising monetary wealth or aspiring to it.

    You tend to find that mainstream artists dream of being fringe or underground whilst underground artists dream of commercial success. The stress between the two encourages people to sway back and forth.

    Worth is subjective, but for most items in life there is a general consensus. Artists making money is more applicable to certain fields in certain times. The music industry is waning because live music is overtly commercial now. The Beatles and Elvis basically turned the industry on its head and the advent of MTV followed by the internet has started to make current forms of music less 'fashionable'.

    Look to what teenagers aspire to be to see how things have changed. Once it was every teenager wanting to be in a band and now it is more about esports, podcasts, and streaming. These are the heroes of today not Bowie or Elvis. Now people want to be Elon Musk or Joe Rogan.

    Anything that gets popularised comes from underground sources. Hip-hop was alive and vital and then it became commercial ... it is just how things are. The 'value' will shift with novelty. The true artists don't care much for money they just make stuff because that is what they do. Others fawn over them or are inspired by them.

    Money is a reasonably good fungible means of trading and interaction between seemingly different areas. Monopolies are the issue. Another issue is that of immediate reward. That is why education is plagued by business models that are detriment to education as the 'pay off' of a good education is hard to measure/predict and takes a considerable amount of time to reap the benefits from. Some times school students do poorly in one year because the students in that year are just dumb yet schools are often rewarded based on the performance of students ... it is insane.

    Money is better than barter ... but maybe with current communications and technologies a combination of the two may be more possible? No idea what that will look like though ... it would take someone extraordinary to come up with and implement an alternative.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    ↪Olivier5
    Your opinion. Fair enough. You can argue/agree/question/view my point here:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11886/choice-the-problem-with-power

    It was about the way people use the term 'power' and questioning the validity of doing so when talking about 'power' in terms of 'corruption'.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    ↪Olivier5
    Giving direction isn't 'bad' though. That is my point. Simply because someone is capable of applying their will here or there it doesn't mean it is 'corrupt' the corruption is more about exactly what they are doing, how they are doing it and why they are doing it.

    Power is just as likely to make changes for good and it is for bad (whatever the perception of good or bad may be).

    I see far too much people trying to drag down others because they are competent and/or possess abilities they don't possess.

    Basically I'm saying the term 'power' has been 'corrupted' top suit the means of those who generally lack competence. Is someone 'coercing' or 'suggesting' or 'guiding'? The term used to describe someone generally tells us more about the person saying it than the person they are referring to if they view power as some root of corruption (not that I am saying you said that).
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    ↪Olivier5
    If you are defining power as something that necessarily corrupts then it does obviously mean that. I don't see why power necessarily corrupts (power meaning ability to influence/control events to some degree).

    I would basically equate power to ability. The 'ability' may be used as a detriment or not. If I have the ability to kill people (which I do and so does practically everyone else) I can apply this in ways that can be deemed as 'corrupt' or 'just' depending on differing circumstances.

    Using power for personal gain and interest above all ease is 'corruption'. That is nothing like saying power causes corruption anymore than it is to say evaporation causes thunder storms or water causes animals to swim. Power can undoubtedly be talked about in terms of how corruption manifests but it is not a root cause in and of itself.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    it remains a fact that power corrupts — Olivier5

    No it doesn't. I think we've been over this before though.
  • Are philosophy people weird?
    ↪TiredThinker
    I think they are hard to find. A lot of people come to philosophy forums because they have a vague interest in expressing something, asking about something or just out of curiosity.

    Most people are capable of philosophical thought and they are usually the kind of people who don't seek out philosophy where there is a sign saying 'philosophy' to start with.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    Power corrupts, and it is easier to remain a good person when you are powerless. — Olivier5

    A person without any power is merely useless as they cannot do anything. A person with power can do something.

    Good people exist because they possess the power to do something not because they are inept. I could just as easily argue that refusing claims to power would make you a bad person because it could be framed as cowardice and refusal to take responsibility.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    ↪Ennui Elucidator
    To talk about differences in sex isn’t inherently ‘sexist’. I think it is a cheap shot and antithetical to any kind of level-headed discussion to try and tar and smear what someone is asking/saying/looking at.

    Even if there is a general agreement that whether man or woman we should behave within certain boundaries it still comes to the point that there are general differences between men and women and that perhaps the general agreement about human bahaviours we wish to aspire towards (as men or women) necessarily means that there is a general difference in paths towards such an aspired place of civil communication, laws and such.

    The underlying question I have is whether or not the differences in how men and women value certain aspects of human life differs enough to warrant justification for any discussion into how society can be better directed towards equality for all (as in equality of choice).
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

    Overall I would probably expect this to be so. On an individual to individual basis I’m not sure it would hold up just as we cannot say definitively that one random woman is less aggressive than one random man (although I would bet on it being the man knowing the odds are slightly in my favour).
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    But are you not noticing the pattern here? You guys are arguing against me about traits that have no bearing on what I'm saying about morality and ethics. — L'éléphant

    No, because I agree there is a difference. I don’t care for ‘morals’ as I’ve stated. I have made quite clear (so I thought?) that men and women in general will have different ethical maps because they are different.

    I mentioned the way feminine and masculine are used because I wasn’t convinced you were aware of how they can be used in psychology. If I was wrong I was wrong, it doesn’t hurt to state how the terms are used though.

    Vaccination is an example of paternalism -- we restrict the freedom of individuals because we believe that there is a greater good that's more important. Coercion for vaccination is done in the name of health and science, truthful as it is, it is still coercion and restriction. — L'éléphant

    But there is also a ‘motherly protection’ aspect too this. Shielding people from harm. We can argue for both maternal and paternal instincts here. Restricting freedom is seen by you as masculine/paternal but not feminine/maternal … probably because feminine and maternal are not exactly synonymous. The virtuous character traits if women (historically) have been more or less ‘passive’ traits, but for archetypes like the all consuming mother figure there is a large amount of tyranny involved as well as great danger.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    ↪Possibility
    I wouldn't call it a 'general pattern' anymore than I would call being born with ten fingers as a 'general pattern'. The reason we make distinctions is because they hold true 99% of the time.

    The same goes for scientific procedure.

    Such views go both ways in regards to 'control'. Stating facts portrayed as attempts to control makes me suspicious about the underlying intent.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    ↪ArguingWAristotleTiff
    Why? What for? If I wanted to post on facebook I would use facebook.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    ↪Possibility
    I think the one thing it is hard to argue against is that overall human development is what is it is and that men and women are distinguishable. That is not to say they are completely different but it is to say that they are most certainly not the same and that the overall pattern is that there are males and females.

    Gender has recently taken on a slightly different take distinct from sex, but I think it has been overly politicised by a small minority within a small minority. As a technical term I'm fine with using the term any way people like just as long as we're both clear we're talking about the same thing.

    The OP seems to be something of a needling against perceived wishy washy types who are more interested in siding with any kind of activists simply because they can and they get a kick out of it. Generally the serious types are not screaming they are just asking questions and considering different views rather than pushing an agenda.

    My position is basically against 'morality' as some kind of 'rule'.

    When it comes to groups and individuals the very differences being discussed here take on a different means. Collectively women behave differently to men and are different to men in attitudes and psychological make up. On an individual to individual to individual basis the chances of distinguishing a man from a woman purely based on psychology alone is more or less guess work.

    It is incredibly easy to confuse the behaviour of a rain drop with the behaviour of rain - as in the behaviour of a man/woman with the behaviour of men/women.
  • Morality and Ethics of Men vs Women
    @L'éléphant Reread and stop overreacting. It is utter gibberish to replace ‘gender’ with ‘physiological’ in that sentence. I used the term ‘sex’ not gender. I have no issue with people using ‘gender’ in the same way as ‘sex’ but you clearly have a chip on your shoulder about something and don’t appear to want to talk about why you deem ‘feminine’ as ‘female’ and ‘masculine’ as ‘male’ when these are absolutely NOT equivocal in psychology. All men have feminine traits and this is not the same as saying they have female traits (I’m talking in terms of technical jargon NOT colloquial talk).

    Yes, what are called ‘feminine’ characteristics are traditionally (universally even) associated with females. Society has shifted.

    It is a ‘touchy subject’ and if you’re touchy about it it doesn’t help anyone.

    I think it is reasonable to say that on the whole there are differences in values between me and women and that these things have changed as society changes too. How are they different? There are personality traits that show some differences between men and women. It also follows that different values will give different moral stances.

    The question for me is not whether men and women have different moral maps but exactly how different they are.
  • The existence of ethics
    @Astrophel Here's a thought. If there is some underlying principle (core elements of) 'ethics' then can an alien species exist and have a completely different set of ethical views/rules? At the heart here is is basically about ways of valuing things.

    Example: Maybe in an alien culture the females would select males based on how well they kill dolphins or build temples made of wood ... this would lay out a 'value system' upon which ethical schemes are based. In such a society maybe they question the underlying value of caring about temples made of wood or killing dolphins BUT they would still care about them to the point that such things have gone hand in hand, or tentacle in tentacle, with their evolutionary history.

    When we look at humans we could take this tack too. How do females select mates? How do males select mates? How have such choices laid out the evolutionary groundwork for our ethical views via our biological predispositions and how influential are these 'innate' parts when it comes to us living out our lives?
Home » I like sushi