Talk:Ethics and evolutionary psychology
|
|
Under another name this page was the subject of a vote for deletion. No consensus to delete emerged; clean-up required. Page moved.
Ethical fitnessism
- Original research, only 1 google hit. -- Graham :) 16:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't decide if it is an advertisement for the concept or what but it has no support - Texture 19:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not an advert - it claims to be about Dawkins - and quotes his work. Doesn't count as original research as it is clearly published. But - has anyone got the book to verify? I haven't. Secretlondon 22:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If it's about Dawkin's parts of it should be merged with Richard Dawkins, I don't think it deserves a page of it's own with one Google hit. I don't think Dawkins actually uses the term "ethical fitnessism", but he may have mentioned "ethical fitness". --Lexor|Talk 03:58, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Move to something like Ethics and evolutionary psychology and keep. I'm fairly familiar with Dawkins' popular writings, and but for the idiosyncratic title it seems a fair statement of one ethical calculus based on sociobiology. Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
While this entry does work better under "Ethics and evolutionary psychology", it's more of an advertisement for an extreme socio-political view than a neutral definition. I added a few lines to balance it out a bit, but there's still the big problem of scope. Namely, "fitnessism" is, at best, a minor footnote in the overall topic of evpsych and ethics, so someone ought to write up a more comprehensive article under which this one can take its properly small place.