--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, Grant Sterling <gcsterling@...> wrote:
> At 09:17 AM 5/31/2007, Daniel Strain wrote:
> >I think there are certain behaviors that are useful and fruitful for
> >human beings to engage in. This is due to (1) the logistics of life
> >and our environment, and (2) the responses of other human beings
> >around us. These factors, (1) and (2) could be called the 'ways of
> >Nature' although Nature certainly includes more than what happens to
> >be good for humans.
> >Over time, those human beings who had an instinctive predisposition
> >toward the more fruitful behaviors were more successful and carried on
> >more of their genes to future generations (this is, incidentally,
> >supported by various evolutionary ethics computer simulations). Thus
> There are many behaviors for which we have an
> inclination, perhaps based on the evolutionary
> forces of our past. However, we have the ability to consciously
> regulate those behaviors, and omit the ones that do not
> serve our interests _now_. Thus, to use my usual example,
> someone may be sexually aroused by an underage girl, but
> decide that it is not appropriate to engage in sex with her.
> [Even if she is old enough to bear children.] Or I may be sexually
> aroused by a woman to whom I am not married, and judge
> that sex with her is inappropriate, etc.
> So just because some behavior was evolutionarily advantageous
> to our ancestors, in my view, gives us _no_ reason to engage in
> that behavior now.
Could this evolutionary, default, 'auto-pilot' explanation help us
somehow in forgiving and not being bitter against those whose actions
are contrary to reason? And, at times, pursue actions contrary to our
'well-intended and well-reasoned' interests?