More comments below (this time marked by *):- >Dr. Hauser presents his argument as a hypothesis to be proved, not as an established fact. But it is an idea that he roots in solid ground, including his own and othersâ?? work with primates and in empirical results derived by >moral philosophers. * "empirical results derived by moral philosophers"? Beware anyone who ever says this. Poor expression or understanding (or both) are among the obvious explanations. Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the same moral judgments, Dr. Hauser writes, implying â??that the system that unconsciously generates moral judgments is immune to religious doctrine.â?? * I suggest this theory may be falsifiable and is even falsified (cf. the tribe that eats its dead parents]. Dr. Hauser argues that the moral grammar operates in much the same way as the universal grammar proposed by the linguist Noam Chomsky as the innate neural machinery for language. The universal grammar is a system of rules for generating syntax and vocabulary but does not specify any particular language. That is supplied by the culture in which a child grows up. * (Though no expert on and having only a very generalised idea of Chomsky's ideas re language-acquisition, which I feel are probably devastating of a trad.arr. 'empiricist' account but not therefore correct themselves) I suggest we might need to crucially distinguish the idea that 'rules' are innate (which is dubious) from the idea that dispositions to grasp language in terms of rules are innate (which is probably correct). The moral grammar too, in Dr. Hauserâ??s view, is a system for generating moral behavior and not a list of specific rules. * The analogy seems strained: (if I guess correctly) Chomsky argues that the 'rules' in the abstract that underlie our linguistic grammar are universal between all languages even if their specific forms differ as between different languages - the 'programme' by which a child learns 'the rules' of Chinese is the same as the one by which another learns 'the rules' of English, even though - at another level - the 'grammar' of the two languages differ. At this other level there are specific grammars, though each is underpinned by a universal grammar. *How we can easily leap, if at all, from this to "moral grammar", so-called? It constrains human behavior so tightly that many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society â?? do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; donâ??t kill; avoid adultery and incest; donâ??t cheat, steal or lie. * This is simple to say but lacking in finesse both as a theory and given what we know historically. Surely there have been societies (and sub-cultures) were "killing" was extolled, "adultery" and "incest" permitted etc. - and there could have been more. But it also allows for variations, since cultures can assign different weights to the elements of the grammarâ??s calculations. * This allowing for "variations" may well render any such theory unfalsifiable (as in so-called 'exceptions' that nevertheless are held to 'prove', being mere "variations",'the rule' rather than taken as falsifying that there is any such 'rule'. Thus one society may ban abortion, another may see infanticide as a moral duty in certain circumstances. Or as Kipling observed, â??The wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Katmandu, and the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban.â?? *Leave Martaban out of it. Lovely place, lovely people. Won't hear a word against them. Been to Clapham Common recently? Matters of right and wrong have long been the province of moral philosophers and ethicists. Dr. Hauserâ??s proposal is an attempt to claim the subject for science, in particular for evolutionary biology. The moral grammar evolved, he believes, because restraints on behavior are required for social living and have been favored by natural selection because of their survival value. * This raises the question to what extent "survival value" explains the morality we adopt and in what ways: clearly a morality that is suicidal (a la Jim Jones [assuming they volunteered, which appears not to be the case]; a la Kamikazism) is likely in some difficulty propagating itself as against a morality that promotes a better sense of self-preservation. Equally, most moralities are not based on simple self-preservation but in fact demand sacrifices - including, depending on the circumstances, the sacrifice of one's life. And this is only to indicate one starting-point for the debate but one which indicates that it would be mistaken to think (a) "survival value" is in no way explanatory of morality (b) "survival value" is totally explanatory or even mainly explanatory of morality. Donal ___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" ? The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html