tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post265723598954706178..comments2024-03-27T00:26:19.644+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: C.S.Lewis Gets It Wrong AgainRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-8333654653884348562012-09-13T13:57:11.572+01:002012-09-13T13:57:11.572+01:00Theories of biological and memetic evolution may w...Theories of biological and memetic evolution may well explain why human beings do possess a moral sense, but they cannot tell us why we OUGHT to be altruistic. They can only tell us why most people think we ought to be altruistic. If someone queries why she OUGHT to be concerned about the welfare of others, then such theories are not helpful. In other words, I think that Lewis was attempting to address the is/ought problem that David Hume referenced over 250 years ago. <br /><br />Thus, in book III, part I, section I of his work, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume wrote:<br /><br />"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."<br /><br />The problem with Lewis is that saying that we ought to be altruistic because of a divinely ordained Moral Law is no answer either.Jim F.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18205756321281305797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-15136099408775614412012-05-24T16:09:49.335+01:002012-05-24T16:09:49.335+01:00Again, a good post, although I disagree with your ...Again, a good post, although I disagree with your reliance on memes. Memes are an extremely useful concept, but no reference to memes need be made to understand the evolution of morality.The Anti-Mythnoreply@blogger.com