ravi gadfly :
-clip-
singer's primary point, as i read it, is this: the left should not accept or fall prey to the rightist interpretation of evolutionary theory, as a) incompatible with co-operative models and traits and b) assuming that the scientific theory implies moral/ethical positions i.e., the is/ought (fact/value) divide.
^^^^^^^^
CB: I agree with "a)". Seems to me biological and paleo- anthropology demonstrate the opposite. That is , the evidence is that the origin of homo sapiens is in an explosion of cooperation, sociality and communism as compared with prior species. This greater cooperation is _the_ main factor in giving "homo socio" Darwinian, selective advantage over competing species.
( "socio" is a better name for our species than "sapiens" exactly because sociality is are main distinguishing characteristic, not "smartness")
By the way, I don't know why there is so little mention of biological and paleo anthropology in these discussions. Where do "evolutionary psychology" and "sociobiology" get off ignoring the main scientific discipline in the subject matter into which they intrude ? Biological and paleo anthropology have been doing "Darwinist" analysis of human origin and development long before these two upstart fads.
"b)" is an interesting issue. Seems to me that any biological inclinations that are typical of our species should at least be taken account of in any moral system, but that said inclinations should not be the basis of an absolutely rigid ethics, because there is a range of diversity within the species. In other words, we want to take account of the "is" in establishing any "oughts" because if we don't our "oughts" will be repressive of natural inclinations that individuals have.
The main "oughts" should be based on our main characteristic: sociality,communalism/communism, getting along with each other.