Greetings, > > Some previous posts in the current thread have attacked this idea by, > > for example, explaining ethics in terms of evolutionary theory or game > > theory, but this is like explaining a statement about the properties > > of sodium chloride in terms of the evolutionary or game theoretic > > advantages of the study of chemistry. Yes, you can legitimately talk > > about ethics or chemistry in these terms, but in so doing you are > > talking meta-ethics or meta-chemistry, which I think is what Bruno > > means by "level shift". > >
Perhaps, but this view speaks to the rift between those that approach human behavior as being different in kind from other animals and those that see it as instead different in degree. The latter, myself included, find the study of ethology (animal behavior) and animal ecology as directly applicable to humans and in those very real fields of study, interpretiing behavior in the context of fitness is standard procedure. So in that sense examining human behavior in that same context can be seen as a legitimate extension of ethology and/or animal ecology, as opposed to some form of meta-psychology, ..anthropology, ..sociology etc.. We share 98%+ of our genetic heritage with bonobo chimps. Many researchers credit our cousins with primitive language capacity, tool usage, and even self-awareness. I doubt, though, that many would find interpreting chimp behavior in the context of fitness to be un-orthodox in anyway. Indeed it is the norm. Cheers CMR <-- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity