And it turns out yes, lots and lots of people have and it's called evolutionary ethics. I really thought I was on to something novel there.
I'm surprised this approach doesn't get brought up more in discussions though, especially around trying to tackle the problem of coming up with a solid basis for a secular system of ethics. Maybe I'm listening to the wrong people.
All the while I was thinking "Surely there's some kind of biological imperative that enforces our sense of right and wrong, since without any kind of inbuilt moral compass to an individual or group, we wouldn't be able to even survive at all?"
Well, after writing 5 pages in my journal fleshing this idea out, I started to think, surely someone would have thought of this already?
I was listening to a debate on systems of ethics between two YouTubers today, with one saying that right and wrong come from god's judgement and without it there would be none, while the other argued, putting it probably a bit uncharitably, that right and wrong derive from nature and kind of just exist somehow.
Considering the name of this instance, this seems like the right place to ask. Is anyone here into street epistemology?
For anyone who hasn't heard of it, it's a conversational technique used to examine beliefs that is similar to socratic questioning, but you focus *just* on the method(s) used to reach a particular belief. An outline for how it goes: https://streetepistemology.com/publications/street_epistemology_the_basics You essentially act as a sounding board for someone else to reflect on how they reached a particular belief, and you keep your own beliefs out of it to avoid turning it into a debate. Hopefully useful for the person reflecting on their belief, but also good for the SE practitioner to get to know the other person's thinking better (and maybe shed themselves of straw men in the process?).
People primarily seem to be using it for supernatural/religious claims at the moment, but it seems like a useful tool for constructive conversations in all kinds of contexts. There are tons of videos on youtube of SE-based conversations.
"Treating the culpables as untouchable sends a message to the current offenders that these behaviors are in bounds and those who practice them suffer no lingering effects. It does nothing to stop the fiscal regularity of companywide memos condemning ongoing sexism, racism and bullying. It does nothing to stop the revolving door of the majority of new college hires leaving the moment their signing bonuses become permanent. It does nothing to stop the cycle of sucking up to those in power in an effort to gain power for oneself."
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.