Reference no: EM133314215
Question 1) Ruse says: "Natural selection is above all opportunistic. Suppose that, instead of evolving from savannah-dwelling primates, we had evolved in a very different way. If, like the termites, we needed to dwell in darkness, eat each other's feces and cannibalize the dead, our epigenetic rules would be very different from what they are now. Our minds would be strongly prone to extol such acts as beautiful and moral. And we would find it morally disgusting to live in the open air, dispose of body waste, and bury the dead. Termite ayatollahs would surely declare such things to be against the will of God."
First, is it intrinsically evil to do the three things that are mentioned? Secondly, the proposed termite-like-humans and actual humans actually share the same moral principles, but only differ in their applications. What are the shared moral principles?
Question 2) In the passage below William Provine makes a number of statements in the name of science which fall outside the limits of science (they pertain rather to philosophy). State ONE of them and explain your claim.
"Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of Judeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false."
"Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws no absolute guiding principles for human society."
Question 3)Benjamin Libet did experiments in which the participants were asked to flex their wrist whenever they felt like it and then report the moment they became conscious of their intention to do so-which they kept track of by observing a modified clock where a revolving hand moved faster than normal clock hands. We would expect that we first have a conscious awareness of an intention to act, which activates the motor area of the brain resulting in a "readiness potential" that results in a signal being sent to the muscles of the wrist or fingers. In the experiment, the participants' "readiness potential" spiked about 550ms before the actual motion, but the participants' reports of their intention to move preceded the motion only by 200ms. Conscious awareness of a desire to flex the wrist arose only after the brain got ready to send signals to the muscles. So it seems that our brain makes up our minds for us, and we only became consciously aware of our "decision" after the fact. Some interpreted this to mean that our conscious decisions are not the cause of our actions, but that our brain determines our actions, and we merely become aware of what it has determined afterwards. Libet rejected this position. Why? Also, how does Libet's rejection tie in with what people have always known about the relationship between emotion and free will?
Question 4)Ruse, Wright, and Provine maintain that there are no necessary and enduring moral principles, but all moral principles only have value for a certain portion of humankind's evolutionary history. Show how this is mostly, if not entirely false, by talking about why the humans of the future will need to acquire the virtues of temperance, courage, justice, and prudence in order to live happily, as did humans of the past. (Talk about only one virtue.)