Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
I wouldn't be so certain on using evolution and genetics to describe human social behavior
but it does seem a sense of justice is just inherent across all humans
in which case it isn't a matter of judging outcomes
|
Of course it is, but justice systems are like the atomic model.
Atoms don't really have shells with small ball electrons flying around them like planets. But it's a simple model that we "get". Similarly, breaking laws don't always lead to unwanted consequences, only usually, which is why we also tend to operate with judge and jury to assess severity of crimes.
We do care about consequence, but we make simpler rules, virtues and explanations because it is practical. It's easier to communicate.
About natural selection and genes to describe human behaviour, we wouldn't exist without our genes. Their blueprints make our bodies including our brains, so the idea that you can separate behaviour from genes is.. kinda religious, I guess? For all the evidence we have, genes do matter.
edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor
The classic thought exp is whether you'd like to know your partner was cheating on a marriage even if not knowing had no ill effects
|
As is, the answer from a utilitarian point of view is no. However, the example makes itself somewhat irrelevant by imposing the impossible caveat of the surety of knowing it has no ill effects. In a real world scenario, cheating does tend to include risk to the one being cheated on.
I would also say the example is in the realm of knee-jerk morals and so isn't necessarily something that needs to be tackled by moral theory or something that moral theory needs to deal with.