| Concept/Content |
value-free nature / langur mother holds dead infant, likely victim of unobserved incident of infanticide by non-father male |
| Information caption |
A langur mother holds a dead baby. Males sometimes kill unrelated infants. This is neither a model for human behavior, nor a reflection of nature failing to adhere to human morals. Nature does not express such values. |
| Inquiry caption |
Here a langur mother holds a dead baby. Males sometimes kill unrelated infants, increasing the prospects for their own offspring. Natural selection leads to traits that enhance survival and reproduction, so can we say that these values are inherent in nature? Should we consider the male langur's behavior moral (or justified), by virtue of the evolutionary history that led to it?
[Example:] Does a falling body reflect a "value" of gravity?
[Example:] Do two charged particles reflect a "value" of electrical attraction?
=> Does causation make any effect or outcome valued or intended?
[Example:] Some species go extinct. Can we declare survival or perpetuation of the species as "necessary" or an inherent value of evolution?
[Example:] Some insect castes are sterile. Other individuals are infertile. Can we declare reproduction as "necessary" or an inherent value of evolution?
=> What is the relationship between the outcome of evolution and intepreting intention or purpose in the process?
Target Concept: Evolution itself does not express or yield values. (Evolution is non-teleological.) |
| Photographer |
Ganesh Shankar |
| Credit |
"Courtesy of Ganesh Shankar, naturelyrics.com" |
| SIZE in pixels [file size] |
404x587 |
