tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post1890589599382111916..comments2023-09-25T07:29:38.364-06:00Comments on Café Philos: an internet café: The Myth of a Human Ideal vs. The Fact of Human DiversityPaul Sunstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-91771010862103634102007-05-15T00:27:00.000-06:002007-05-15T00:27:00.000-06:00Richard, thank you for a very interesting and info...Richard, thank you for a very interesting and informative discussion. I feel you've helped me advance in my understanding here.Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-75703129650376224982007-05-14T21:44:00.000-06:002007-05-14T21:44:00.000-06:00Ah yes, I see. I originally thought you were merel...Ah yes, I see. I originally thought you were merely suggesting that we aren't naturally tending towards convergence. But if you're making the stronger claim that our natures would actively <I>prevent</I> us from converging on a single ideal, even if we wanted to, then the "ought implies can" principle will take care of the rest for you. Thanks for clearing that up!Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-65135522156068414672007-05-13T22:14:00.000-06:002007-05-13T22:14:00.000-06:00Richard, I believe you're right. We cannot base o...Richard, I believe you're right. We cannot base our moralities on a simple, straight-forward premise that what is natural is good. After all, war and rape seem to be natural to our species, but very few people would want to argue that they were therefore good.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for clarifying that!<BR/><BR/>I do think, however, the point remains there can be no ideal human type because there is no natural ideal. That's to say, asserting an ideal human type in the absence of any natural basis for one is like asserting that humans should fly by flapping their arms in the absence of any known ability to do so. <BR/><BR/>Am I making any sense?Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-59280306388826716912007-05-12T03:01:00.000-06:002007-05-12T03:01:00.000-06:00Fair point: facts about what's realistically possi...Fair point: facts about what's realistically possible will constrain what we could reasonably be required to do (as per the "ought implies can" principle).<BR/><BR/>But, unless I've misread you, that doesn't <I>seem</I> to be the way you and Ed were using science here. Rather, you seemed to be assuming (1) that the human <I>telos</I>, goal, or "ideal type", is determined by the natural origins and development of our species; and (2) evolutionary theory establishes that we are not, in fact, developing towards any unique goal. Therefore, (3) there is no single "ideal type" of human.<BR/><BR/>Is that a fair reconstruction of your argument? If so, I would have concerns about premise (1). The problem with eugenists, and others who wanted to 'help hurry evolution along', is that they were <I>morally</I> as well as scientifically deluded. "Natural" doesn't mean "good". <I>Even if</I> (counterfactually) humanity was naturally developing towards blue eyes and blond hair, that fact has no intrinsic moral significance. There's nothing necessarily "ideal" about the (hypothetical) end-point of a natural process like evolution.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-53975228888596098872007-05-11T02:38:00.000-06:002007-05-11T02:38:00.000-06:00Hi Richard!That's a very good question! Until rela...Hi Richard!<BR/><BR/>That's a very good question! Until relatively recently, I accepted the is/ought gap as pretty much absolute. But lately, I've come to question it.<BR/><BR/>Although I think there is indeed something of an is/ought gap, I'm no longer sure it's absolute. It seems to me there is a legitimate role that "is" plays in "ought".<BR/><BR/>To illustrate: Suppose some mad moral philosopher asserted (1) that every human had a moral duty to be charitable, but (2) only charities done while one was invisible were moral. Wouldn't we have a legitimate right to reject (2) on the grounds that it was impossible for humans to be invisible? And if we rejected (2) on those grounds, wouldn't we in effect be rejecting (2) on scientific or knowledge grounds?<BR/><BR/>To be sure, I'm not prepared to say there is no is/ought gap, but I am of the opinion nowadays that "is" rightfully influences and informs "ought".<BR/><BR/>What do you think? Does that make any sense? Or should I drink more coffee and reconsider it?Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-17126520838416338532007-05-10T23:15:00.000-06:002007-05-10T23:15:00.000-06:00What happened to the is/ought gap? Science (incl. ...What happened to the is/ought gap? Science (incl. evolutionary theory) tells us what humans <I>are</I>, and how we <I>came to be</I>, but surely the question of <I>what we ought to be</I> is entirely beyond it.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-67360397238187076402007-05-09T19:20:00.000-06:002007-05-09T19:20:00.000-06:00Hi Ed!Interesting points! Not only are we all imp...Hi Ed!<BR/><BR/>Interesting points! Not only are we all imperfect, we are also all interdependent. Two good reasons to unite us.Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6489111.post-73496234427663402712007-05-08T17:41:00.000-06:002007-05-08T17:41:00.000-06:00As Paul says, evolutionary theory clearly and pate...As Paul says, evolutionary theory clearly and patently shows that the concept of an ideal human is nonsense. <BR/><BR/>Humans like all other creatures are subject to the evolutionary pressures acting upon us and tugging our genes, bodies and minds in ever-changing directions. These evolutionary tides are constantly turning as the world, and our presence in it, changes. As a consequence, no human will ever be perfectly adapted to his or her environment. <BR/><BR/>Amidst this grand diversity, surely the only thing that can really unite us is how imperfect we all are?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com