tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434668023705387232.post4062286695728162342..comments2023-06-27T09:23:51.659-05:00Comments on like a lake: Hard-Wired Moralitypr1ttyrickyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04564404488295009464noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434668023705387232.post-18922005987500781212009-06-02T05:16:01.928-05:002009-06-02T05:16:01.928-05:00Nice post. thanks for sharing..
regards
Photogramm...Nice post. thanks for sharing..<br />regards<br /><A HREF="http://www.sblgis.com/photogrammetry_services.aspx" REL="nofollow">Photogrammetry mapping</A>Photogrammetry serviceshttp://www.sblgis.com/photogrammetry_services.aspxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434668023705387232.post-38205779871789340312009-06-01T19:23:19.357-05:002009-06-01T19:23:19.357-05:00So Flipper is based on actual events:)
Sweet.So Flipper is based on actual events:)<br /><br />Sweet.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511017439465230071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434668023705387232.post-15288465765173926792009-05-31T20:13:28.142-05:002009-05-31T20:13:28.142-05:00Hey Adam,
Thanks for the comment! And I agre...Hey Adam, <br /><br /> Thanks for the comment! And I agree with you completely. I don't think lower animals can actually tell the difference between right and wrong, because they don't have the cognitive capacity for abstract reasoning. And I think that this ability for abstract reasoning is essential for the "why we should follow the rules" question that you are bringing up. So yeah, I think that science is definitely helping us discover more and more about morality in all sorts of ways, but the question of why we should follow various moral rules is still in the realm of philosophers.<br /><br />Also, as far as I know, the book does cover altruism a bit . . . even altruistic acts outside of one's species. For example, it's often cited that dolphins will save humans from sharks. So, the book is supposed to cover that stuff, but I'm interested in how well it's covered. <br /><br />Thanks again!<br /><br />-Rickypr1ttyrickyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564404488295009464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434668023705387232.post-32531229907458849182009-05-29T15:36:05.630-05:002009-05-29T15:36:05.630-05:00"It sometimes seems like scientists have no busine..."It sometimes seems like scientists have no business talking about moral issues. But this book could show that one doesn't need religion to explain while we feel empathy for others, have urges to be honest, and want to protect others from harm. Such feelings could be . . . dare I say it . . . instinctual."<br /><br />Ah, but the interesting question (or at least the more important one) is not WHY we might feel the moral "ought," but rather, "does the moral ought actually exist?" Science might be able to construct a plausible story of why we feel certain moral inclinations; I am afraid it can't tell us why such feelings should be followed. It is a big jump from saying "we feel as if we should not murder" to "we should not murder." Science might shed some light on the former state of affairs, but it can't really touch the latter.<br /><br />With that aside, these studies are fascinating. I would be interested to know more about the extent of the "moral" behavior demonstarted in animals. Is it limited to cooperation, or does it pass into altruistic-like acts?<br /><br />PeaceAdamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511017439465230071noreply@blogger.com