TPQs (9/19): Group 2 Posts, Group 3 Responds

[Becko Copenhaver]

[rh...@lclark.edu]

Do you buy the author's evolutionary argument?  Do you believe his examples are enough to come to any real conclusion?  Why or why not?  He shows how altruism is superior hedonism in the case of child care, and how hedonism is superior in the case of being injured.  His conclusion is that hedonism is overall less likely to be the result of evolution.  

[ega...@lclark.edu]

Does the evolutionary argument rule out egoism completely, or does it just make it a slightly less plausible way of thinking when it comes to an evolutionary standpoint? As Sober demonstrates, egoism is not completely unusable, it is just a more complicated way of thinking about heredity and parenthood than pluralism. Also, is there a way to argue that egoism would be efficient in guaranteeing the survival of offspring? Or is Sober correct in saying that "from an evolutionary point of view, hedonism is a very bizarre motivational mechanism" (pg. 147)?

[afin...@lclark.edu]

"The idea is that the burden of proof lies with those who challenge common sense." (Sober 140). Sober addresses the vagueness of this idea of common sense- what is it? can it change based on shifts in what people believe? 

Paired with the section on empirically testing egoism, I think this begs the question: is there any way to avoid fallacies when either defending or attacking philosophical theories, such as egoism or hedonism? 

[leep...@lclark.edu]

I buy Sober's argument, insofar as he buys it. By this I mean, Sober does not seem to be certain at the end of the article that he has adequately dismantled hedonism. For example, Sober concedes that he does not "suggest that this argument proves that people are motivational

pluralists; there is much that remains unknown about the mind and how it

evolved," (Sober 147). Ultimately, I think that Sober's evolutionary argument serves its intended purpose: to show that egoism is not necessarily the default position of human nature. That said, Sober does not seem to think that this rules out egoism entirely; he just says that the scales are tipped, if only ever so slightly, in favor of pluralism.

[sluh...@lclark.edu]

I think what Sober is getting at is not that evolutionary(psychological) egoism holds no place in terms of its acceptability, reliability, and efficiency, but that it seems that egoism is best understood as relegated to the realm of the individual, whereas motivational pluralism is the mechanism applied by evolution to handle instances of necessary collective socialization. He gives the case of a person putting their hand on a hot surface to denote the obvious and necessary component that egoism regulates in our species. He gives the case of parental nurturing to discuss the existence of altruism. 

[ep]

It seems that common sense is established in response to norms, practices, etiquette and morals formed by a certain culture or subculture.  Sober explains that testing certain philosophical theories such as egoism is problematic because they (like the concept of common sense) require background assumptions that are not always present or consistent.  If specific background frameworks are set, one may avoid fallacies in defending or attacking a theory, but the theories themselves are still not fundamentally established.

 

[Becko Copenhaver]

Good question - try to think about the scope of the hedonist claim and what that tells you about what Sober must show in order to show show that hedonism is false.

[Becko Copenhaver]

Good question - this is definitely an indirect and probabilistic argument, so it has to be assessed on those merits.

[Becko Copenhaver]

O.k., good - does this help us understand the reading better?

[Becko Copenhaver]

This sounds exactly right.

[Becko Copenhaver]

What in the text suggests that Sober thinks that egoism is true for individuals but false for societies?  I'm not sure this is accurate.

[Becko Copenhaver]

That sound exactly right.