Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 17:23:48
In reply to Re: possible faulty assumption??? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by AuntieMel on May 27, 2005, at 16:55:22
Auntiemel - yep, Gabbi's point was what I was trying to get at...
:-)
The example is slightly tenuous......
Thats why I prefered to get back to the specism / racism analogy.What things are 'selected for' is indeed a tricky notion. There is a lot of work being done in Philosophy of Biology with respect to how to work out the 'proper function' of any characteristic that has been selected for.
Ruth Millikan wrote an incredibly influential (also incredibly dense) article on it and from there things have just taken off....
It does seem that the proper function of caniverous teeth is to enable us to eat meat.
The proper function of guys tending to be bigger is a lot more dubious (as you say)...
There could be lots of related things going on.But all I need... (and then I'd just get rid of the 'rape' analogy...) Is an example of a characteristic that was (fairly uncontroversially) selected for a certain function...
Yet we do not consider it morally acceptable to act in that way.I mean...
People are made of meat. It might be 'natural' to eat them (them being made of meat and all) but it is typically considered morally unacceptable to do so...Hmm.
So you might want to say 'it is always morally acceptable to act on the proper function of an evolved characteristic'.
And that just might be able to work....
But...
I'm not so sure...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:498173
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/503802.html