/lit/ - Literature

>>19638736
I respectfully think you are poisoning the well.

Part 1 is very solid and convincing. More than twenty studies related and unrelated to moral judgements are presented across two decades, many cultures were tested and many researches approached the matter (Kohlberg, Scweder...). The evidence for the bias is overwhelming, even if the evolutionary psychology part does leave doubts.

Part 2 is where the book may fall flat and the presented thesis requires amendments before the part is even over (such as the differentiation of justice for liberals and conservatives). Although I believe that it is poisoning the well to say 'anything can be evolutionarily benefitial', because that is not the case.

Part 3 is more convincing, although the author has a humble approach to evolutionary psychology since he is not a biologist. He presents a very reasonable case for morality being benefitial to living beings and human societies, although the hypothesis of the social switch may be hard to prove and require more studies than 'it is the hormones / it is the neuron'.

I found that he was quite good with philosophy, in particular his reasonable approach to Kant and Bentham's systemic moralities, David Hume's argument for a more human and superfluous morality derived from the person's aesthetic sense, and also there is a great application of Durkheim's anthopological studies of morally conservative societies in comparison to Stuart Mill's damage-based morality that is prevalent in modern western rich countries.

THIS is real traditionalism.

Eternal reminder that if you've started with the greeks, you are a pleb and have skipped over 15000 years of human creation.

Please abstain from posting on this board before you finish reading Jean Clottes's Cave Art.

You can clearly see the origins of mythology and the fears that have populated literature for thousands of years.

>>6255089
Overrated. Read The Inheritors instead