Ma3Ke4Li3

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irvned8 wrote

Reply to comment by TMax01 in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Yes, I think it would be wrong to say that mammals are moral, period. The point is rather, I think, that something we might call "morality" is more likely to emerge in mammals or birds, rather than lizards, at this is because our neurobiology allows us (does not necessitate us) to feel deep care for others. Might be factually false (think of crocodile parenting), but the logic is a bit more nuanced.

1

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irvn5k5 wrote

Reply to comment by Puzzleheaded_Gas_163 in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

The Euthyphro's dilemma I guess? A classic! I remember some philosopher, I think Colin McGinn, saying that Euthyphro's dilemma is to philosophers what climate change or evolutionary theory is for scientists: the one thing people actually have a consensus on.

3

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irvmzj1 wrote

Reply to comment by tapirbackrider1 in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I like that, thanks for sharing! But there is a third way: morality is rooted in traits that were selected for but is something built on top of it. Churchland hints at this, but someone who makes this very explicit is Philip Kitcher For him, morality is a "social technology" but it springs from something very deep within us. I have a full conversation about it with him:

https://on-humans.podcastpage.io/episode/2-humanistic-ethics-in-a-darwinian-world-philip-kitcher

2

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irvm73h wrote

Reply to comment by time_and_again in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

One of my favourite books in this regard is Tomasello's Natural History of Human Morality. It's a great read, and despite being by a scientist, it gives very high value to philosophers.

2

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irryv3w wrote

Reply to comment by r0ndy in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I don't think the argument would be quite that biological impulses "become" or "are" morality. Rather, certain biological impulses must be in place for there to be a "platform" for morality.

So the question is, why is it that there is a corner of the animal kingdom where anything vaguely resembling morality could have taken off? And Churchland argues that it is not a coincidence that it is this warm-blooded ape, instead of, say, salamanders, that does moral philosophy.

5

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irry52e wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Yes, I agree that Conscience is a great book! This formed the basis of our conversation in this podcast episode. I must say that I actually like her newer work more than the traditional one on consciousness. I think it added a lot of fresh air into neurophilosophy. Anyway, did you get the chance to listen to any of it? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts. We discussed material that was not included in the book.

2

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irrudq5 wrote

Reply to comment by r0ndy in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Yes, and as said, her argument was that empathy etc. is a certain "platform for morality" on top of which we also learn social norms. But what I would like to hear people's perspectives on whether there is any value in rooting morality in biological impulses. Or does this undermine morality? I don't think so - but I think many would disagree.

3

Ma3Ke4Li3 OP t1_irrq66m wrote

Reply to Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Abstract: Is morality a social construct or rooted in biology? Patricia Churchland argues that the earliest origins of human morality emerged in mammals and birds due to some cascading effects of being warm-blooded. This cascade begins from the high calorific demands of endothermy. This forces warm-blooded animals to become more flexible in their hunting and foraging strategy, which in turn requires a large cortex. Having a large cortex requires, in turn, immature births, because the cortex is largely built in infancy. This was the first evolutionary pressure that allowed unselfish concerns to evolve (originally, for offspring). Later, the same neurobiology of care is used in a variety of circumstances and allows the kind of flexible and caring sociality that we observe in mammals and birds. In the case of humans, this “platform for morality” is supplemented by two other factors: social learning of moral norms, and social problem-solving within various constraints.

​

[Note: this is a repost from yesterday. The original was removed as I forgot the abstract. However, it generated good discussion, so I thought it worthwhile to resubmit it.]

​

[Another note: Patricia Churchland has been very generous with her time with me and has already answered questions that were raised in similar forums. If you have questions you would like her to answer directly, do drop one in and I will do my best to get a response.]

11