| Concept/Content |
relation of biology to moral philosophy / table |
| Information caption |
Philosophers identify at least three frameworks for conceptualizing morality: moral outcomes, moral motives (or intent), and moral systems.
Consequentialism focuses on the outcomes themselves. For example, morality is assessed as the greatest good for the greatest number. Good may be defined variously as benefit, happiness or pleasure. It corresponds to an mere analysis of behavior. A contrasting approach, deontology, emphasizes instead motives (or reasoning). For example, morality is measured by feelings of sympathy or virtuous intent. The relevant information is from analyzing mental states. Both approaches draw on widely shared intuitions, although they sometimes lead to different moral codes. They have not yet been synthesized. A third, complementary strand of philosophical thought situates morality on yet another level: the concept of a social contract. Here, the relevant observable behavior is a social system, including communication. Morality is characterized primarily by mutual consensus on values. Biologists can inform each perspective, as described in this table. |
| Inquiry caption |
Suppose we turn to moral philosophers. Even after centuries of reflection and debate, they do not all agree among themselves on core ethical principles for defining "good." Generally, however, they recognize three basic approaches. (Does anyone know them?) One approach, consequentialism, focuses on the outcomes themselves. For example, morality is assessed as the greatest good for the greatest number. Good may be defined variously as benefit, happiness or pleasure. A contrasting approach, deontology, emphasizes instead motives or reasoning. For example, morality is measured by feelings of sympathy or virtuous intent. Both approaches draw on widely shared intuitions, although they sometimes lead to different moral codes. They have not yet been synthesized. A third, complementary strand of philosophical thought situates morality on yet another level: the concept of a social contract. Morality is characterized primarily by mutual consensus on values.
Each of these characterizations, or definitions, leads biologists to a different type of explanation. Listed here, then, are three complementary ways one might address questions about the biology of morality. No one explanation may be exhaustive or complete, so all three seem informative.
Any questions or comments before we explore each of these?
Target Concept: Philosophers identify at least three frameworks for conceptualizing morality: moral outcomes, moral motives (or intent), and moral systems. |
| Source |
Douglas Allchin |
| SIZE in pixels [file size] |
717x317 |
|
