Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 2073800)

the idea that human behavior can all be attributed to natural selection in our tribal days is reductionist and no longer unchallenged since the 20th century

Originally Posted by jwb (Post 2073801)

what serves society first and foremost is having a common moral framework by which you can regulate the members of said society

Society A and society B might have different specific morals, but the purpose those morals serve are much more identical.

E.g. I remember a study from years back about how they determined that certain neural activity resembled someone pondering a moral question vs a strictly logical question.

And they asked a group of people about stoning a woman for adultery, some of whom were Western and some of whom were middle Eastern. The people answered the question predictably, of course. The striking thing was that in both the Western and middle Eastern patients, the same neural patterns manifested. The Westerners were disgusted at the murder a woman, the middle easterners week disgusted at her betrayal of her husband. Both were following the same instincts, though informed by different cultures so they came to very different conclusions.

Originally Posted by jwb (Post 2073805)

I'm trying to but having a hard time finding it. It was years ago I read this particular piece.

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 2073810)

I'm not dosagreeing that the capacity for forming morality is inherent, but the rules will vary culture to culture

in this way it is like language