-----Original Message-----
From: John Foster <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, November 27, 1998 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Peter Singer - An Interview


>At 07:39 AM 11/26/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>>John Foster writes;
(snip)


>The reason that evolution is of value in solving ethical problems  is that
>it may explain a little more than simple vitalism. For instance, the
>biological function of parturition and caring for one's young is vital for
>all mammal species. It is also much more, and in human relationships,
>parenting is not only vital but is a moral obligationl. In animals it is
not
>a moral obligation, but is vital to the species. Very few animals abandon
>their young deliberately.

This is *not* vitalism.

>Henri Bergson used the term  "evolution creatice" which is his
>phrase for creative evolution. Secondly, he used the term "elan vital" to
>mean or refer to the creative energy that exists in all created beings.
>
This is vitalism and it is exactly what Darwinian evolution eliminated by
the rule of parsimony, i.e. the explanation which meets all observable facts
and is the simplest is most likely correct. So, natural selection or a
mysterious vital force?

(snip)
 Aldo Leopold went through a spiritual crises as a
>result of predator control actions he organized in Arizona, riding the
>landscape of wolves.

I think he went thru a change in his thinking about the ecological
relationships and predator prey dynamics, but I'd hardly call it "spritual".

(snip a lot)
 Ethics is about the inorganic, the ideal, and it is only
>relevent to humanity, not to anything else in the universe, except insofar
>as it impacts human impacts on the unviverse; and it is essential that it
>remain anthropogenic/homocentric.

Ethics is "inorganic?" That hardly makes sense. Do you mean "rational" or
something like that? I'm 100% organic (with chemical additives) and I'm
mostly ethical.

(snip)
Darwin has not explained this. Is it always better for the
>strongest to be selected for as a species? To me this makes no evolutionary
>sense.

Nor should it. Darwin never said it. He said that all species reproduce an
excess of offspring and the offspring vary and that some of that variance
contributes to differential reproduction which, over time, will lead to
speciation. Others used the terms "strongest" and such. Darwin didn't even
originate the term "fittest," that was Spencer I believe.

(snip)
>My comment on Darwinianism is that it fails to explain why all beautiful
>things in the world die, and why people often do not want beautiful things
>to die. This is not explained by Darwin.

(snip)

Nor should it. Nor do I understand what you mean by "beautiful." Name a
couple of ugly things for me.

(snip)
Bissell wrote;
>>I can see how "guided" evolution can easily encompass ethical evolution,
but
>>what's the difference in that from just saying that all morality always
>>comes from God(dess)? Evolutionary ethics as espoused by Kropotkin and now
>>perhaps E. O. Wilson evolved because it confered reproductive success on
>>populations. These are two very different concepts.
>
John replied:
>Reproductive success is only one measure of success.

it is the *only* measure of success in evolution, which is what I was
referring to in my first post. Obviously we can say one thing or another is
successful in a cultural or social or economic or scientific sense and so
on, but in evolution, reproduction is the single measure of success. Usually
it is the individual's reproduction, but, since this started out as a
discussion of the possibility of the evolution of moral behavior, it can
also mean reproductive success which selects for morality thru kin selection
or reciprocal altruism.

Bissell




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%