He’s referring to biological value, as it’s defined in: “What is value?”.
Biological value is not the same as the type of value that you’re thinking of.
It’s distinct from the other types of value.
Biological value claims are truth claims, unlike other types of value claims.
A claim about biological value, such as “cutting down the tree is bad for the tree” or “overdosing on fentanyl is bad for you” is a truth judgment, not a value judgment.
I could want to cut down the tree, and still understand that it is bad for the tree to be cut down.
Not only weren’t organisms created to reproduce.
Organisms are designed to reproduce.
If organisms weren’t designed to reproduce, then they won’t reproduce, they will have no descendants, and organisms will stop existing altogether.
Organisms just do what they do. They exist because certain structures tend to reproduce themselves, and those structures can occur naturally.
Yes, exactly.
It’s dangerous to do even that.
No, it isn’t.
It’s impossible to describe biology without using normative language, since biology is intrinsically teleological.
I don’t understand why this is a stumbling block.
We always use normative language when talking about biology.
Normative language is often used descriptively, as in “this soil is good/optimal for pine trees”.
Or “smoking is bad for one’s health and fertility”.
Disease is “dis”-”ease”.
Disorder is “dis”-”order”.
There is no way to talk about biology without using normative terms.
Evolution selects forms based on their effects.
Thus, the effects explain the form.
But it’s not just the effects.
Certain effects, which might not even be probable, explain the form.
Those effects are the telos.
The telos explains the form.
You have to be careful to remember that the word “purpose” there is a metaphor.
I really don’t understand what your issue is.
He said “biological purpose”, not purpose in general.
The author understands that biological purpose is not the same thing as subjective purpose.
These two types of purpose are clearly different concepts, and I see no conceptual mess.
There is no ambiguity here.
He’s referring to biological value, as it’s defined in: “What is value?”. Biological value is not the same as the type of value that you’re thinking of. It’s distinct from the other types of value. Biological value claims are truth claims, unlike other types of value claims. A claim about biological value, such as “cutting down the tree is bad for the tree” or “overdosing on fentanyl is bad for you” is a truth judgment, not a value judgment. I could want to cut down the tree, and still understand that it is bad for the tree to be cut down.
Organisms are designed to reproduce. If organisms weren’t designed to reproduce, then they won’t reproduce, they will have no descendants, and organisms will stop existing altogether.
Yes, exactly.
No, it isn’t. It’s impossible to describe biology without using normative language, since biology is intrinsically teleological. I don’t understand why this is a stumbling block. We always use normative language when talking about biology. Normative language is often used descriptively, as in “this soil is good/optimal for pine trees”. Or “smoking is bad for one’s health and fertility”. Disease is “dis”-”ease”. Disorder is “dis”-”order”. There is no way to talk about biology without using normative terms.
Evolution selects forms based on their effects. Thus, the effects explain the form. But it’s not just the effects. Certain effects, which might not even be probable, explain the form. Those effects are the telos. The telos explains the form.
I really don’t understand what your issue is. He said “biological purpose”, not purpose in general. The author understands that biological purpose is not the same thing as subjective purpose. These two types of purpose are clearly different concepts, and I see no conceptual mess. There is no ambiguity here.