Only Humean

I like PZ Meyers and agree with him on the existential plane, but when it comes to ethical claims, I feel he often seems to abandon Reason for and opt for towing of the party line. It surprises me when scientists seem so dogmatic on moral questions.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think there's anything wrong with being passionate about one's beliefs (in fact, I tend to admire it), but at the same time, I think such passion needs to be tempered with "Reasonable people can disagree," especially in ethical matters.

Perhaps, he should include a little more Hume in his diet. :)



"Hume's position in ethics, which is based on his empiricist theory of the mind, is best known for asserting four theses: (1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions” (see Section 3) (2) Morals are not derived from reason (see Section 4). (3) Morals are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action (see Section 7). (4) While some virtues and vices are natural (see Section 13), others, including justice, are artificial (see Section 9). There is heated debate about what Hume intends by each of these theses and how he argues for them. They are best understood in the context of Hume's meta-ethical theory and his ethic of virtue and vice."

Hume's Moral Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

See also: E.O. Wilson on The Biological Basis of Morality.