PHIL 3330

Multi-level selection theory

Wilson -gene individual -group selection-behave at group levels is super dominant and strong. ex: ants and the colony. ants give up their individual genes to serve as a colony. How does this relate to humans? well we are not ants and that we are derived from individual genes and push to be selfish. It is in our nature and fight within us. (self vs other fight)

Sober

conclusion about evolution and ethics led to the third option which is: that science and ethics are two different questions. 1. why we do what we do?-science answers 2. Justification-what the right thing to do is-ethics and philosophy answer -he thinks ethics is hard because of self deception

According to levy

evolved morality is real morality -we have some sort of sense of obligation towards others -example: stealing violating rules and thinking to ourselves about helping others because we feel an obligation to do so. (ie God and our perceptions of heaven and hell)

Social Darwinism

let evolution take its course survival of the fittest only the fit survive

Tit-for-Tat

one of the possible explanations as to how morality and cooporation evolved -being altruistic to people who are altruistic Example: Bats sharing food. bats are likely to share with other bats if they have shared with them. It is better to have a steady income of food rather than be dependent on yourself for survival. -In a short term round then its best to defect however, in the long term with multiple rounds, its best to cooperate and share

Value Free ideal: arguments for and against)

Kitcher: that science cannot and should not try to be value free. First, judgments about what research projects that we should pursue requires value judgments. Second, Kitcher believes that the consequences of being right or wrong in scientific practice should be weighed ethically. -Kitcher suggests that the motivation behind the value-free ideal is an "allergy to public value judgement"

Kin selection

Levy constructys 3 possibilities (one including kin selection) that have brought us to cooperate in prisinor's delimma. Kin selection: selection arising from the indirect fitness benefits of helping relatives (altruism) -the tendency for natural selection to favor behaviors that increase the chances of survival of genetic relatives

Naturalistic Fallacy

The (mistaken) idea that anything "natural" must be "good." Example: argument in favor of social Darwinism. social Darwinists argue that if nature is this way (only the fittest survive) then it ought to be this way with various features of society.

moral realism

The view that there are objectively right and wrong things to do, regardless of whether or not people realize it.

Kitcher's purpose of science in a democratic scoiety

science is to provide us with experts in the ideal: we should determine what science is and what the outcome should be. However, since the ideal is not realistic, he says whatever outcome that would get closest to the ideal should be used to discuss scientific studies and funds. 1. vulgar: everyone votes 2.Informed: inform everyone then take a vote 3. elite: internal elite-scientists external elite: congress Kitcher ends by saying that we should either try it or use sociological models in deciding what the outcome would be.

moral nihilism

the belief that there are no morally right or wrong viewpoints—that the whole moral issue is a cultural game, and neither your opinion nor mine matters in the end, for there is no ultimate right or wrong.

Douglas: role of values in science

the value free ideal What questions to pursue how to pursue them what conclusions should we draw from the data what the data (evidence actually is) main distinction: authority: claim of science to generally producing successful accounts of the world autonomy-independence of science from social concerns and evaluations. but using both causes a problem because values drive inquiry.

moral subjectivism

whenever we make a moral judgement we are just making a judgement about our own attitudes, e.g our feelings about approval or disapproval -sober's ideas

Kitcher: well ordered science

What is the role of science in a democratic society and what should science study and how? -well ordered science the ideal: everyone deliberates and comes to agreement ideal agents can learn from others but kitcher believes that values may differ.

The prisoner's dilemma

-2 players and game is symettrical ie: the rules apply to both players -best possible outcome is the opposing player cooporates and I do not. Should you coporate or defect? both cooperate-stays the same if you cooperate- you pay the cost to give another person the benefit Why is it better to defect? -better no matter what. you will always get more money Shermer thinks that you should not defect? why -prisoner example of the two armed robbers and the police has evidence that both people commited the crime. If one player tells them that the other one did it, then their sentence will be decreased. If the player does not out his friend and his friend outs him, then the player must serve longer time in jail. If both defect, then both go to jail for same time. In shermer's opinion it is better to not defect and to cooperate and reduce sentence. Worst thing to happen is to not confess and your partner turns you in. To confess is the dominant strategy and cooperate to reduce the sentence.

The moral responsibilities of scientists

-Douglas -concerned with moral responsibility including choices people make -science must be understood as part of, as functioning within society. -this gives us the correct view of the responsibilities of scientists. Society does value science for the empirically reliable knowledge it produces but it does not mean that any possible piece of knowledge that can be pursued or disseminated should be. -science is a practice saturated with moral responsibility

Wilson and the purpose and meaning of life

-Wilson talks about evolution a lot in regards to meaning and purpose. -In his chapter "the reason we exisit" Wilson describes how evolution some how gives us our purpose in life. One would argue that the reason we exist is due to the passing of genes, however Wilson argues that our purpose is not something we actually think about ie. we do not think about making our genes perfect (sperm labs/donors). -Wilson believes that we are unique as humans from ants and other animals etc because we have a sense of wisdom and self understanding. -Wilson believes that we have a large desire to understand ourselves and that literature and art and clultural differences are what helps us do so. -Wilson believes that humans are the result of multiple levels interacting

Reciprocal Altruism

-another possible explanation as to how morality evolved -Levy thinks that in the long run reciprocal altruism is better for you. You are altruistic to people who are altruistic. Alturism: pay a cost to help someone else Shermer and levy think that this is like what humans do already

Shermer's view about science and ethics

-how we ought to behave -science is making us smarter which is making us more ethical -thinks you should defect in prisoner's dilemma because its best to cooperate and keep your mouth shut then it is to confess and defect. -dominant is to cooperate to reduce the sentence but either way they will have you in prison for time. Worst thing to do is keep your mouth shut and your partner turns you in. -shermer and levy believe that the argument that we should assume that what we do influences the opposing player is a bad argument because his mind is already made up and that you cant assume that what you do has any influence on the player. -shermer and levy believe that tit for tat is one of the multiple explanations of how cooperation evolved and that tit for tat is what humans already do. -shermer, levy, wilson, rosenburg, believe that science is the only way to know things

What role do we actually play in science

-science is informing us of ethics -rosenburg: science actually shows us important truths (no ethic truths) -Sober: science is irrelevant and doesn't tell us what we ought to do. and science is limited to different questions. Shermer, levy, Wilson, Rosenberg: science is the only way to know things.

According to rosenberg

Believes that levy is right when he says evolved morality is real morality, HOWEVER, he thinks that the conclusion shows NO morality. That there is no external force for cooperation and no objective morality. -since our core morality has evolved, it shows that there is no real morality -he is a nihilist Moral nihilism: moral claims are always false and there is no such thing as moral obligation. Sober says moral subjectivism -good news: moral nihilism has a core morality and a core set of moral beliefs that we mostly all share and a disagreement is mostly because of empirical arguments -no ought to- just do what you want.

Eugenics

More extreme if you cant rise to the top then we wont take the risk Control of mating to ensure that "defective" genes of troublesome individuals will not be passed on to future generations.