I work on the basis of the selfish gene - so I put things in the order of myself, then my close relatives, then my friends and the immediate society I live in, then the wider society I live in, and so on working outwards
But Why that order? Why not some other order? You've only pushed the explanations back a step.
"Enjoyable" is of course begging the question--saying we want to do things because they are enjoyable doesn't seem to be saying anything other than we want to do them because we want to do them. The survival of one's genes is certainly an empirical phenomenon, but you haven't provided an explanation of why anyone should care whether their genes survive or not.
I will never forget my philosophy teacher's look of outrage when I suggested that maybe the reason nobody had found any universal ethical beliefs was because there weren't any. I suspect I have treasured that response ever since and have been biasing my own thinking accordingly.
This surprises me, since usually Anglo-American philosophers are anal about considering all the options (or at least all the options their logical minds can understand), and the possibility there aren't "universal ethical beliefs" (quoting because that seems different than some other similar claims) seems intuitively quite plausible. It reminds me of my high school theology teachers who were more interested in moral education than engaging in real theological discussion (likely, I had one good teacher) or high school English teachers who are more interested in indoctrinating students with made-up grammatical "rules" (don't end a sentence with a preposition) than being linguistically knowledgeable.
no subject
But Why that order? Why not some other order? You've only pushed the explanations back a step.
"Enjoyable" is of course begging the question--saying we want to do things because they are enjoyable doesn't seem to be saying anything other than we want to do them because we want to do them. The survival of one's genes is certainly an empirical phenomenon, but you haven't provided an explanation of why anyone should care whether their genes survive or not.
I will never forget my philosophy teacher's look of outrage when I suggested that maybe the reason nobody had found any universal ethical beliefs was because there weren't any. I suspect I have treasured that response ever since and have been biasing my own thinking accordingly.
This surprises me, since usually Anglo-American philosophers are anal about considering all the options (or at least all the options their logical minds can understand), and the possibility there aren't "universal ethical beliefs" (quoting because that seems different than some other similar claims) seems intuitively quite plausible. It reminds me of my high school theology teachers who were more interested in moral education than engaging in real theological discussion (likely, I had one good teacher) or high school English teachers who are more interested in indoctrinating students with made-up grammatical "rules" (don't end a sentence with a preposition) than being linguistically knowledgeable.