Moral philosophy belongs to culture and thus coevolves with, rather than opposes, cognition.

Evidence

Why, after all, do the trainswitching and footbridge hypotheticals come to us “tagged” with different affects, so that they get channeled to different centers of brain functioning? Why is one scenario usually considered abstract and impersonal, while the other tends to be felt as immediate and emotionally resonant? For skeptics of philosophy, the explanation for this difference will take the form of an evolutionary story regarding the traditional closeness of contact within human groups and the ensuing need for brightline, hardwired injunctions against doing harm. But the story also will include talk of cohesion, cooperation, and culture. Because philosophy is an integral part of culture, it seems quite premature to conclude that the discipline has nothing to offer in the understanding and guidance of our conduct, that its work is hermetically sealed off from human evolution and the functioning of the brain. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 111

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Technical sophistication of policy has discouraged public engagement with values in assessment — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 664; Enlightenment thinking sought the indubitable and lost sight of the undeniable — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 657; Moral values may have a shared universal core beneath cultural variation — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 955 (+5 more)

Broader Connections