DOCSLIB.ORG

HBES 2006 Program of Events - Thursday 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HBES 2006 Program of Events - Thursday 3 HBES 2006 i WELCOME TO HBES 2006 Conference Participants: It is with great pleasure that we welcome you the 18th annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society at the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University. We would like to thank our very generous Sponsors and the many people who volunteered their time to make this conference possible. We and the Society owe many people a great debt, and we genuinely appreciate their service. Note there are some changes to the Conference this year. Thursday and Friday evenings will both have Poster Sessions. Posters will be placed in four different locations, and will be up during the conference. Also, we have introduced a system to keep Oral Presentations in close synchrony. Details on the Poster Sessions and the timing of the Sessions are available in your Registration Package. Finally, because of the overwhelming number of submissions for the New Investigator and Postdoctoral Competitions, we will be announcing the winners after the conference rather than during the banquet. Please be sure to check the conference web site for this information. If you have any questions or difficulties, the Registration Desk in the Houston Hall lobby will be staffed throughout the conference. In addition, people from host institutions are recognizable by their distinctive name tags, and will be able to answer many of your questions. We hope that your conference experience will be both enjoyable and intellectually enriching. Robert Kurzban Steve Platek Conference Organizers Sponsors The University Research Foundation, University of Pennsylvania The College of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania Department of Psychology, Drexel University Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, University of Pennsylvania Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania HBES 2006 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Program Committee Host Committee Monique Borgerhoff Mulder Peter DeScioli Dan Fessler Julian Keenan Rob Kurzban∗ Steve Platek* Daniel Nettle Jason Weeden Competition Organizer Tim Ketelaar Competition Judges Stephanie Brown* Carlos Naverette Catherine Salmon* Rob Deaner Daniel Nettle Nancy Segal* Lisa Debruine Steve Josephson Peter Todd Kimmo Erickson Deb Lieberman Tony Volk Glenn Geher Rick O’Gorman David White Michael Gurven Nick Pound Frances White Presentation Timer Hasan Ayaz Volunteers Craig Bergman Rachel Chandler John Christner Elizabeth Dawes Anne Grossestreuer Austen L. Krill Tiffany M. Lake Sarah Leinwand Jamie Liberti Elizabeth Murray Karol Osipowicz Shilpa Patel Alex Shaw Jaime W. Thomson Diana Zarzuelo ∗ Chair HBES 2006 iii HBES OFFICERS President: David Buss President-Elect: Steven Gangestad Past-President: Bobbi Low Treasurer: Raymond Hames Secretary/Archivist: Lee Kirkpatrick Journal Liaison Officer: Eric Alden Smith Council Members at Large: Mark Flinn (2007) Marikoh Hiraiwa Hasegawa (2007) Steven Pinker (2009) Douglas Kenrick (2009) Martie Haselton Debra Lieberman HBES 2006 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Quick Timetable ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Program of Events Thursday …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Friday ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Saturday …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 Sunday …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Keynote and Plenary Abstracts …………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Session Talk Abstracts Thursday Morning ………………………………………………………………………………………… 28 Thursday Afternoon ……………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Thursday Evening ………………………………………………………………………………………… 39 Friday Morning ………………………………………………………………………………………… 44 Friday Afternoon ………………………………………………………………………………………… 50 Friday Evening ………………………………………………………………………………………… 56 Saturday Morning ………………………………………………………………………………………… 60 Saturday Afternoon ……………………………………………………………………………………… 66 Saturday Evening ………………………………………………………………………………………… 72 Sunday Early Morning ………………………………………………………………………………… 76 Sunday Late Morning …………………………………………………………………………………… 82 Sunday Special Session ……………………………………………………………………………… 87 Poster Abstracts Thursday ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 89 Friday ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 110 Poster Locations …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 130 Index ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 132 HBES 2006 Quick Timetable 1 QUICK TIMETABLE Wednesday June 7th 12:00-9:00 p.m. Registration Houston Hall Lobby 7:00-9:00 p.m. Welcome Reception Houston Hall Lobby Thursday June 8th 8:00-8:45 a.m. Coffee Houston Hall Lobby 8:45-9:00 a.m. Special Welcome – Provost Daniels, University of Irvine Auditorium Pennsylvania 8:00a-5:00 p.m. Registration Houston Hall Lobby 9:00-10:00 a.m. Morning Plenary – Robert Frank Irvine Auditorium 10:00-10:30 a.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 10:30a-12:10 p.m. Morning Sessions (A) Houston Hall Session Rooms 12:10-1:30 p.m. Lunch on Your Own 1:30-2:30 p.m. Afternoon Plenary – Marlene Zuk Irvine Auditorium 2:30-3:00 p.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 3:00-4:40 p.m. Afternoon Sessions (B) Houston Hall Session Rooms 4:40-5:00 p.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 5:00-6:00 p.m. Evening Sessions (C) Houston Hall Session Rooms 6:00-7:30 p.m. Dinner on Your Own 6:00 p.m. HBES Executive Council Meeting Golkin Room 7:30 p.m. Poster Session 1 Houston Hall Poster Rooms Friday June 9th 8:00-9:00 a.m. Coffee Houston Hall Lobby 8:00a-5:00 p.m. Registration Houston Hall Lobby 9:00-10:00 a.m. Morning Plenary – Joan Silk Irvine Auditorium 10:00-10:30 a.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 10:30a-12:10 p.m. Morning Sessions (D) Houston Hall Session Rooms 12:10-1:30 p.m. Lunch on Your Own 12:10-1:30 p.m. HBES Publications Committee Meeting Golkin Room 1:30-2:30 p.m. Afternoon Plenary – Hillard Kaplan Irvine Auditorium 2:30-3:00 p.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 3:00-4:40 p.m. Afternoon Sessions (E) Houston Hall Session Rooms 4:40-5:00 p.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 5:00-6:00 p.m. Evening Sessions (F) Houston Hall Session Rooms 6:00-7:30 p.m. Dinner on Your Own 7:30 p.m. Poster Session 2 Houston Hall Poster Rooms HBES 2006 Quick Timetable 2 Saturday June 10th 8:00-9:00 a.m. Coffee Houston Hall Lobby 8:00a-5:00 p.m. Registration Houston Hall Lobby 9:00-10:00 a.m. Morning Plenary – Joseph J. Campos Irvine Auditorium 10:00-10:30 a.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 10:30a-12:10 p.m. Morning Sessions (G) Houston Hall Session Rooms 12:10-1:30 p.m. Lunch on Your Own Brownbag Presentation Class of 1949 Auditorium 1:30-2:30 p.m. Afternoon Plenary – Jim Sidanius Irvine Auditorium 2:30-3:00 p.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 3:00-4:40 p.m. Afternoon Sessions (H) Houston Hall Session Rooms 4:40-5:00 p.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 5:00-6:00 p.m. Evening Sessions (I) Houston Hall Session Rooms 6:00-7:00 p.m. Break 7:00-8:30 p.m. Keynote Address – Daniel C. Dennett Drexel's Main Auditorium 8:30 p.m. Banquet Drexel's Great Court Sunday June 11th 8:00-9:00 a.m. Coffee Houston Hall Lobby 9:00a-12:20 p.m. Registration Houston Hall Lobby 9:00-10:40 a.m. Early Morning Sessions (J) Houston Hall Session Rooms 10:40-11:00 a.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby 11:00a-12:20 p.m. Late Morning Sessions (K) Houston Hall Session Rooms 12:20-1:40 p.m. Special Session on Literature Class of 1949 Auditorium 1:40 p.m. Conference Ends HBES 2006 Program of Events - Thursday 3 PROGRAM OF EVENTS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7 12:00-9:00 p.m. Registration Houston Hall Lobby 7:00-9:00 p.m. Welcome Reception Houston Hall Lobby THURSDAY, JUNE 8 8:00-8:45 a.m. Coffee Houston Hall Lobby 8:45-9:00 a.m. Special Welcome – Provost Daniels, Irvine Auditorium University of Pennsylvania 9:00-10:00 a.m. Morning Plenary by Robert Frank Irvine Auditorium A Darwinian Perspective on Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand Abstract p. 24 10:00-10:30 a.m. Break Houston Hall Lobby Morning Sessions Session A-1: Cooperation in Groups: The Role of Punishment Bodek Lounge Chair: John Tooby Abstracts pp. 28-29 TH 10:30 Does an Unfair Intention Increase Third-Party Punishment? Takahashi, Nobuyuki; Takagishi, Haruto; Mashima, Rie TH 10:50 The Coevolution of Altruism and Punishment: Role of the Selfish Punisher. Nakamaru, Mayuko; Iwasa, Yoh TH 11:10 Punishing Non-Cooperators Doesn't Yield a Solution to the Problem of Cooperation but Rewarding Cooperators Does. Kiyonari, Toko; Barclay, Pat; Wilson, Margo; Daly, Martin TH 11:30 For Whom Do We Reciprocate? The Effects of Dominance Relationships on the Use of Incentives in Collective Action. Kim, Sangin TH 11:50 The Role of "Outrages" in the Evolved Psychology of Intergroup Conflict. Tooby, John; Thrall, Nathan; Cosmides, Leda HBES 2006 Program of Events - Thursday 4 Session A-2: Symposium: Literature and the Logic of Inclusive Fitness Hall of Flags Chair: Joseph Carroll Abstracts pp. 29-31 TH 10:30 Toward a New Humanities. Gottschall, Jonathan A. TH 10:50 Graphing Jane Austen. Carroll, Joseph C.; Johnson, John A.; Kruger, Daniel J.; Gottschall, Jonathan A. TH 11:10 Adaptive Functions of Literature: Why the Author Won't Die. Turpin, Jeff P. TH 11:30 The Historical Reception of Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery". Michelson, David M. TH 11:50 Genes vs. Resources: Mate Selection in Wharton's Glimpses of the Moon. Saunders, Judith P. Session A-3: Symposium: Mating Intelligence: Toward an Class of 1949 Auditorium Evolutionarily Informed Construct Chair: Glenn Geher Abstracts pp. 31-32 TH 10:30 A Psychometric Validation of Mating Intelligence: Verbal Creativity, General Intelligence, Personality, Psychopathology, and Sexual History. Tal, Ilanit R.; Miller, Geoffrey F.; Swegel, Paul J. TH 10:50 Mating Intelligence and General Intelligence as Independent Constructs. Kanazawa, Satoshi TH 11:10 For the Love of the Muse. Kaufman, Scott Barry; Bromley, Melanie L.; Kaufman, James C. TH 11:30 Studying Mating Intelligence in the Speed Dating Context. Todd, Peter M. TH 11:50 Deception as a Strategy in Long-Term and Short-Term Mating. O'Sullivan, Maureen HBES 2006 Program of Events - Thursday 5 Session A-4: Signaling Ben Franklin Room Chair: Thomas Flamson Abstracts pp. 32-33 TH 10:30 Indices of Quality? Multivariate Analyses of Motion-Captured Dance Movement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disgust: Evolved Function and Structure
    Psychological Review © 2012 American Psychological Association 2013, Vol. 120, No. 1, 65–84 0033-295X/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030778 Disgust: Evolved Function and Structure Joshua M. Tybur Debra Lieberman VU University Amsterdam University of Miami Robert Kurzban Peter DeScioli University of Pennsylvania Brandeis University Interest in and research on disgust has surged over the past few decades. The field, however, still lacks a coherent theoretical framework for understanding the evolved function or functions of disgust. Here we present such a framework, emphasizing 2 levels of analysis: that of evolved function and that of information processing. Although there is widespread agreement that disgust evolved to motivate the avoidance of contact with disease-causing organisms, there is no consensus about the functions disgust serves when evoked by acts unrelated to pathogen avoidance. Here we suggest that in addition to motivating pathogen avoidance, disgust evolved to regulate decisions in the domains of mate choice and morality. For each proposed evolved function, we posit distinct information processing systems that integrate function-relevant information and account for the trade-offs required of each disgust system. By refocusing the discussion of disgust on computational mechanisms, we recast prior theorizing on disgust into a framework that can generate new lines of empirical and theoretical inquiry. Keywords: disgust, adaptation, evolutionary psychology, emotion, cognition Research concerning disgust has expanded in recent years (Ola- selection pressure driving the evolution of the disgust system, but tunji & Sawchuk, 2005; Rozin, Haidt, & McCauley, 2009), and there has been less precision in identifying the selection pressures contemporary disgust researchers generally agree that an evolu- driving the evolution of disgust systems unrelated to pathogen tionary perspective is necessary for a comprehensive understand- avoidance (e.g., behavior in the sexual and moral domains).
    [Show full text]
  • Morality Is for Choosing Sides
    CHAPTER 18 Morality Is for Choosing Sides Peter DeScioli Robert Kurzban Why did moral judgment evolve? To help people choose sides when conflicts erupt within groups with complex coalitions and power hierarchies. Theories of inorality have largely tried to ex­ What, then, might be the benefits gained plain the brighter side of behavior, answer­ tl1rough moral judgn1e11ts? Consider a situ­ i11g questio11s about wl1y people behave ii1 atio11 in wl1ich a perso11 accuses so1neo11e of ways that are kind, generous, and good. Our witchcraft, such as in Arthur Miller's The proposal focuses not on explaining n1oral Crucible. Specifically, suppose tl1at a you11g, behavior but, rather, on explaining inoral low-status wo1na11 accuses an older, more judgn1ent. Co11sider son1eone readi11g a pron1i11ent wo111an of witchcraft. Other news story abot1t a rnan who pays a woman members of the commt1nity can respond in to have sex with him. Many people wot1ld a few different ways. judge-in an intuitive way (Haidt, 2012)­ One obviot1s move for a self-interested that both the man's and woman's actions are observer is to curry favor with the higher­ n1orally wrong. O t1r interest lies in the ex­ status wornan. Choosing sides based on sta­ planation for these and similar judgments. tus often occurs in very hierarchical groups Theories that atte1npt to explain moral such as tl1e inilitary (Fiske, 1992). It is also behavior often point to altruism or benefits observed i11 11onl1uma11 ani111als: For i11- (de Waal, 1996; Krebs, 2005; Ridley, 1996; stance, hyenas join fights and st1pport the Wright, 1994). The theory of reciprocal al­ higher-statt1s and more formidable fighter truism (Trivers, 1971), for instance, explains (Holekamp, Sakai, & Lt1ndriga11, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Are Supernatural Beliefs Commitment Devices for Intergroup Conflict?
    Are Supernatural Beliefs Commitment Devices For Intergroup Conflict? Robert Kurzban John Christner University of Pennsylvania Robert Kurzban Department of Psychology 3720 Walnut St. Philadelphia PA 19104 (215) 898‐4977 [email protected] Abstract. In a world of potentially fluid alliances in which group size is an important determinant of success in aggressive conflict, groups can be expected to compete for members. By the same token, individuals in such contexts can be expected to compete for membership in large, cohesive groups. In the context of this competition, the ability to signal that one cannot change groups can be a strategic advantage because members of groups would prefer to have loyal allies rather than confederates who might switch groups as conditions change. This idea might help to explain why members of certain kinds of groups, especially competitive ones, use marks, scars and other more or less permanent modifications of their bodies to signal their membership. To the extent that people with these marks have difficulty joining rival groups, these marks are effective in signaling one’s commitment. It is possible that the public endorsement of certain kinds of beliefs have the same effect as marks. In particular, there are certain beliefs which, when endorsed, might make membership difficult in all but one group. This idea is proposed as an explanation for supernatural beliefs. Are Supernatural Beliefs Commitment Devices? Arguably the most important political event of the albeit still young 21st century was a case of intergroup conflict in which supernatural beliefs played a pivotal role. The attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington DC, and the foiled attack by the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11th, 2001, was motivated by intergroup conflict, but made possible in no small part because the perpetrators had beliefs about the afterlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Can the Social Scientists Be Saved? Should They?
    Evolutionary Psychology human-nature.com/ep – 2006. 4: 102-106 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Book Review Can the social scientists be saved? Should they? A review of Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists by Jerome H. Barkow (Ed.). 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 302 + vii. $49.95 (hardcover). Satoshi Kanazawa, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected]. I began my graduate career in the Department of Sociology at the University of Washington, where the great sociobiologist Pierre van den Berghe taught all his career. I was a stupid SSSM (“Standard Social Science Model”) sociology graduate student then, and I joined the chorus of the confederacy of dunces to ridicule Pierre’s sociobiological work. More than a decade later, I discovered evolutionary psychology on my own by reading Wright's The Moral Animal, and converted to it overnight. When I began working in EP, I apologized to Pierre for having been too dense to see the light a decade earlier, and told him my grand plan to introduce EP into sociology and revolutionize social sciences. Pierre was encouraging but cautious. He told me that he had tried to do that himself a quarter of a century earlier but to no avail. Sociologists were just too stupid to understand the importance of biology in human behavior, a view that he has expressed in print (van den Berghe, 1990), and he eventually left the field in disgust. Blinded by youthful optimism and ambition, I did not heed Pierre’s cautionary words and tried very hard to introduce EP into sociology.
    [Show full text]
  • See No Evil, Speak No Evil? Morality, Evolutionary Psychology, and the Nature of International Relations Brian C
    See No Evil, Speak No Evil? Morality, Evolutionary Psychology, and the Nature of International Relations Brian C. Rathbun and Caleb Pomeroy Abstract A central theme in the study of international relations is that anarchy requires states set aside moral concerns to attain security, rendering IR an autonomous sphere devoid of ethical considerations. Evolutionary and moral psychology, however, suggest that morality emerged to promote human success. It is not despite anarchy but because of anarchy that humans have an ethical sense. Our argument has three empirical implications. First, it is almost impossible to talk about threat and harm without invoking morality. Second, state leaders and the public will use moral judgments as a basis, indeed the most important factor, for assessing international threat, just as research shows they do at the interpersonal level. Third, foreign policy driven by a conception of international relations as an amoral sphere will be quite rare. Word embeddings applied to large political and non-political corpora, a survey experiment in Russia, surveys of the Chinese mass public, and an in-depth analysis of Hitler’s foreign policy thought suggest that individuals both speak evil, condemning aggressive behavior by others, and see evil, screening for threats on the basis of morality. The findings erode notions of IR as an autonomous sphere and upset traditional materialist-ideational dichotomies. A frequent theme in international relations (IR) theory is that foreign affairs is an amoral realm where everyday ethical norms know no place. Under anarchy, ethical considerations must be set aside because morality’s restraints hinder the necessary pursuit of egoistic interests through the use of threats and violence.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Science 2011
    Cognitive Science 2011 press.princeton.edu contents 1 general interest A Message from the Editor 4 psychology 5 social science It is with great pleasure that, on behalf of my colleagues at Princeton University Press, I introduce our inaugural cognitive 8 philosophy science catalog. The books here exemplify the quality of schol- 10 biology arship that we prize, and reflect the interdisciplinary approach that we take to publishing. Indeed, cognitive science—an in- 11 best of the backlist terdisciplinary field connecting research within the humanities, 13 index/order form social science, and science—is a natural fit for the Press. As demonstrated in the following pages, our cognitive science publishing includes work from psychologists and neurosci- entists, philosophers of mind, evolutionary biologists, and social scientists of all stripes. This catalog highlights recent and forthcoming books by established and diverse voices such as Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel, Patricia Churchland, Nicho- las Humphrey, Michael Corballis, Paul Thagard, Louise Barrett, and Thomas Seeley, as well as the newcomer Robert Kurzban, whom Steven Pinker calls “one of the best evolutionary psy- chologists of his generation.” Also featured here are important classic works by authors such as Frans de Waal, Jean-Pierre Changeux, Richard Gregory, Richard Thaler, Robert Shiller, Peter Singer, and Thomas Henry Huxley. Unifying all of these authors and books, past and present, is an effort to provide a clearer understanding of the relationship between the brain, the mind, individual behavior, social interaction, and social institutions. We believe that this catalog heralds a bright future for our cognitive science program, and we hope that within these pages you will find books and ideas that inspire and enlighten.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Nature & Human Diversity Syllabus – Part II: Topics
    1/10/2017 Human Nature & Human Diversity Philosophy 253 (01:730:253) & Cognitive Science 253 (01:185:253) Spring Term 2018 Syllabus – Part II: Topics & Assignments Part II of the Syllabus is a WORK IN PROGRESS; it will be updated frequently during the term. Assigned readings and videos will change as we discover better material. (Suggestions are ALWAYS welcome!) Dates will inevitably be adjusted as we find that some topics need extra discussion and debate while others can be covered more quickly. Changes in Part II of the Syllabus will be announced in lecture, in the Announcements on Sakai, and via e-mail. Books to buy: 1. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Pantheon Books, 2012. 2. Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton University Press. These book are available at the Rutgers Barnes & Noble bookstore. They can also be purchased on-line are often less expensive on-line. All other readings for the course will be available on the Sakai site for the course. Topics & Readings: January 18 Lecture topic: Introduction to the Course: A Very Brief Discussion of the Mechanics of the Course What Is Human Nature? An Overview of the Topics We’ll Be Exploring (Part 1) Reading (to be completed prior to the lecture): Course Syllabus, Parts I & II; Policies on Behavior in the Classroom; Grading Scale Videos i) To be viewed before the lecture: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (available on Sakai in the Streaming Video folder) – from the beginning thru 1:00:25 ii) In lecture: The Science of Sex Appeal: Part 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Is There a Law Instinct?
    Washington University Law Review Volume 87 Issue 2 2009 Is There a Law Instinct? Michael D. Guttentag Loyola Law School Los Angeles Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Michael D. Guttentag, Is There a Law Instinct?, 87 WASH. U. L. REV. 269 (2009). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol87/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IS THERE A LAW INSTINCT? MICHAEL D. GUTTENTAG ABSTRACT The widely held view is that legal systems develop in response to purposeful efforts to achieve economic, political, or social objectives. An alternative view is that reliance on legal systems to organize social activity is an integral part of human nature, just as language and morality now appear to be directly shaped by innate predispositions. This Article formalizes and presents evidence in support of the claim that humans innately turn to legal systems to organize social behavior. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 270 I. THE LAW INSTINCT HYPOTHESIS ......................................................... 276 A. On the Three Essential Features of a Legal System ................ 277 1. Distinguishing Legal Systems from Other Types of Normative Behavior......................................................... 279 2. Distinguishing the Law Instinct Hypothesis from Related Claims ................................................................ 280 3. The Normativity of Law ................................................... 281 4. The Union of Primary Rules and Secondary Rules ......... 282 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook
    Brooklyn Law Review Volume 75 Issue 2 SYMPOSIUM: Article 4 Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care? 2009 The aN tures of Universal Moralities Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Bailey Kuklin, The Natures of Universal Moralities, 75 Brook. L. Rev. (2009). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol75/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. The Natures of Universal Moralities Bailey Kuklin† One of the abiding lessons from postmodernism is that reason does not go all the way down.1 In the context of this symposium, one cannot deductively derive a universal morality from incontestible moral primitives,2 or practical reason alone.3 Instead, even reasoned moral systems must ultimately be grounded on intuition,4 a sense of justice. The question then † Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I wish to thank the presenters and participants of the Brooklyn Law School Symposium entitled “Is Morality Universal, and Should the Law Care?” and those at the Tenth SEAL Scholarship Conference. Further thanks go to Brooklyn Law School for supporting this project with a summer research stipend. 1 “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.” JEAN-FRANCOIS LYOTARD, THE POSTMODERN CONDITION: A REPORT ON KNOWLEDGE xxiv (Geoff Bennington & Brian Massumi trans., 1984). “If modernity is viewed with Weberian optimism as the project of rationalisation of the life-world, an era of material progress, social emancipation and scientific innovation, the postmodern is derided as chaotic, catastrophic, nihilistic, the end of good order.” COSTAS DOUZINAS ET AL., POSTMODERN JURISPRUDENCE 16 (1991).
    [Show full text]
  • The Epistemic Parity of Religious-Apologetic and Religion-Debunking Responses to the Cognitive Science of Religion
    religions Article The Epistemic Parity of Religious-Apologetic and Religion-Debunking Responses to the Cognitive Science of Religion Walter Scott Stepanenko Department of Philosophy, John Carroll University, University Heights, OH 44118, USA; [email protected] Abstract: Recent work in the cognitive science of religion has challenged some of the explanatory assumptions of previous research in the field. Nonetheless, some of the practitioners of the new cognitive science of religion theorize in the same skeptical spirit as their predecessors and either imply or explicitly claim that their projects undermine the warrant of religious beliefs. In this article, I argue that these theories do no additional argumentative work when compared to previous attempts to debunk religious belief and that these recent debunking efforts are very much motivated by methodological commitments that are shared with canonical research. I contend that these argumentative strategies put debunkers very much on an epistemic par with religious apologists: both advocate responses to the cognitive science of religion that are primarily motivated by methodological commitments. Keywords: epistemology; religious experience; cognitive science of religion Citation: Stepanenko, Walter Scott. 2021. The Epistemic Parity of 1. Introduction Religious-Apologetic and The discourse around the cognitive science of religion (CSR) creates the impression Religion-Debunking Responses to the that religion debunkers are in an epistemically superior position relative to religious Cognitive Science of Religion. apologists. A great deal of philosophical and theological work in the literature is dedicated Religions 12: 466. https://doi.org/ to the construction of debunking arguments motivated by CSR evidence and apologetic 10.3390/rel12070466 responses to these arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-As-Cooperation in 60 Societies
    Current Anthropology Volume 60, Number 1, February 2019 000 Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies by Oliver Scott Curry, Daniel Austin Mullins, and Harvey Whitehouse Online enhancement: supplemental appendix What is morality? And to what extent does it vary around the world? The theory of “morality-as-cooperation” argues that morality consists of a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation recurrent in human social life. Morality-as-cooperation draws on the theory of non-zero-sum games to identify distinct problems of cooperation and their solutions, and it predicts that specific forms of cooperative behavior—including helping kin, helping your group, reciprocating, being brave, deferring to superiors, dividing disputed resources, and respecting prior possession—will be considered morally good wherever they arise, in all cultures. To test these predictions, we investigate the moral valence of these seven cooperative behaviors in the ethnographic records of 60 societies. We find that the moral valence of these behaviors is uniformly positive, and the majority of these cooperative morals are observed in the majority of cultures, with equal frequency across all regions of the world. We conclude that these seven cooperative behaviors are plausible candidates for universal moral rules, and that morality-as-cooperation could provide the unified theory of morality that anthropology has hitherto lacked. Anthropology has struggled to provide an adequate account 2013:231). This cooperative account has the potential to pro- of morality. In 1962, the philosopher Abraham Edel (1962) vide anthropology with the unified theory of morality it has complained that “anthropology has not furnished a systematic hitherto lacked.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Monogamy, Paternal Care and Pairbonds Primatology
    The Evolution of Monogamy, Paternal Care and Pairbonds Doctoral and Master's Programs @ the University of Pennsylvania The Penn Anthropology program, ranked 6th nationally, offers a four-field approach to Canopy walk, Tiputini Biodiversity Station, Ecuador the study of anthropology. At Penn, Biological Anthropology students interested Current Graduate Students: in primatology and human behavior also benefit from interactions with faculty in other Cecilia Juarez: Shenazby Watercolor Khimji 04 departments, such as Drs. Dorothy L. [email protected] Cheney (Biology), Robert Kurzban Andrea Spence-Aizenberg: (Psychology), and Robert M. Seyfarth [email protected] (Psychology). Sam Larson: [email protected] Ph.D students are offered 5 years of full Maggie Corley: support through the Benjamin Franklin [email protected] Fellowships. Paul Babb: [email protected] For questions regarding the Graduate Primatology and Program contact the Graduate Department of Anthropology Anthropology @ Penn Coordinator Zoe Beckerman at (215) 746- University of Pennsylvania 3260 South Street 0409. Philadelphia, PA 19104-6398 Phone: 215-898-7461 www.sas.upenn.edu/anthro/ Field sites Argentina & Ecuador Some current collaborations Influence of carnivores on owl monkey populations (with Dr. M. Huck, Pilagá River Aotus azarae Quincho Research Cabin Post Doctoral Owl Monkeys of the Argentinean Gran Chaco Fellow) A multidisciplinary project on the ecology, population Ocelot, Guaycolec Ranch, Formosa biology, demography, genetics, endocrinology and Hormonal correlates of conservation of owl monkeys in the Argentinean monogamy and Principal Investigator Chaco. biparental care , (with Dr. Eduardo Fernandez-Duque Dr. C. Valeggia, Some of the current studies are: Anthropology, Penn and ° Male and female contributions to territoriality, Dr.
    [Show full text]