Fri, Nov 16 2012 at 1:22 PM
Since the ancient Greek philosophers, what is moral in philosophy has been defined as what rational thought determines is good or how we ought to live, questions which may have no definitive answers. These philosophical ideas about what morality ought to be (rather than what morality is as a matter of science) are the chief sources of confusion in understanding non-human behavior that would be called moral if done by people. As Rowlands describes, that confusion evaporates when we understand what moral behavior really is as a matter of science. Understanding human and animal biology underlying moral behaviors as adaptations selected for by their increased benefits of cooperation in groups reveals the common heritage of both animal and human moral behavior. I look forward to seeing if Rowland discusses the implications for human morality of this emerging science of morality. That is, understanding human morality as biological and cultural adaptations selected for by the benefits of altruistic cooperation in groups.