My goal in this paper is to respond to the objection that naturalistic accounts of morality miss the thicker meaning with which we normally imbue ethics. I concur. This should lead us to doubt our thicker concepts, ho...My goal in this paper is to respond to the objection that naturalistic accounts of morality miss the thicker meaning with which we normally imbue ethics. I concur. This should lead us to doubt our thicker concepts, however, not doubt moral genealogy. Our thicker conceptions are hyperbolic, at best. The underlying algorithm of morality is the evolutionarily stable strategy： conditional cooperation. The content of such agreements can vary, however, and that is where moral hyperbole resides. Still, we like to distinguish good hyperbole from bad hyperbole, but the only standard for such appraisal is whether the hyperbole is consistent with the social glue of evolutionary dynamics.展开更多
文摘My goal in this paper is to respond to the objection that naturalistic accounts of morality miss the thicker meaning with which we normally imbue ethics. I concur. This should lead us to doubt our thicker concepts, however, not doubt moral genealogy. Our thicker conceptions are hyperbolic, at best. The underlying algorithm of morality is the evolutionarily stable strategy： conditional cooperation. The content of such agreements can vary, however, and that is where moral hyperbole resides. Still, we like to distinguish good hyperbole from bad hyperbole, but the only standard for such appraisal is whether the hyperbole is consistent with the social glue of evolutionary dynamics.
