Okay. Very clear. Can I think of Kuhn as one who examines the (scientific) zeitgeist? — ucarr

Yes. In fact I will see your zeitgeist and raise you one Weltanschauung( I’m such a card).

Where did you generate this idea from? That's not true at all. Humans (all life forms, really) achieve homeostasis through acts that accrue the resources that allow them to do so. Homeostasis is the basic impetus to action. — Garrett Travers

I was objecting to your use of "equilibrium" as the defining feature of good. Obviously I do not agree with you, that we get our sense of good and evil from a homeostasis. And homeostasis is not an impetus to action. Homeostasis may be a condition which provides for the capacity to act, but that does not mean it is the impetus to action. A capacity requires a cause to be directed toward a particular action. The cause, which directs it toward one act rather than another (sense of good) is the impetus.

When I see your raise & raise that , I'll süss the pot with gold coins featuring the faces of Einstein, Bohr & Planck.

I think the question was, what is the source of the sense of good and evil. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perceived homeostasis vs homeostatic disruption is the basic sense. Equilibrium vs chaos from the level of individual perception. — Garrett Travers

Obviously not, because good is attributed to acts, and equilibrium is attributed to a lack of activity. "If you want to get to heaven, you got to raise a little hell". — Metaphysician Undercover

Where did you generate this idea from? That's not true at all. Humans (all life forms, really) achieve homeostasis through acts that accrue the resources that allow them to do so. Homeostasis is the basic impetus to action. — Garrett Travers

This seems an oversimplification, a collapse of the wavefunction upon observation. Humans achieve homeostasis through a balance of action AND inaction - actually, that’s an oversimplification, too. It’s more accurately non-commuted values of attention and effort in a four-dimensional structure. We just don’t observe the inaction. Makes good and evil a little more complex, doesn’t it?

That's something I've been trying to explain to people. The brain's functions generate the capacity to formulate conceptual frameworks from multisensory data, ethical frameworks fall within that category. — Garrett Travers

Even if that were true, every single ethical framework is a conceptual framework. There would be no basis for selecting between alternative but conflicting ethical frameworks that doesn't require an ethical (versus a material) presupposition. You can't just jump across the is-ought gap, nor can you declare it bridged by fiat.