Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40272649›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2026

King Lear in the upper palaeolithic: searching for ethical principles in prehistory.

Charles Foster

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Charles FosterUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK. charles.foster@exeter.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ethics are concerned with maximising the thriving of individuals and societies. One cannot maximise the thriving of a person unless one has some idea about what sort of creature that person is. Ethics follow ontology. Many answers have been suggested to the question 'What is a human?' and the less fundamental question 'What are the defining attributes of a human'? Many of those answers are theological, and hint that the essence of a human is indefinable; that humans are unknowable, contradictory and mysterious. This article contends that, since behaviourally modern humans have been hunter-gatherers for an overwhelming proportion of their history, we are still foundationally hunter-gatherers, and that accordingly useful insights into our constitution can be gained by examining the quintessential characteristics of Upper Palaeolithic people. Those characteristics are wandering, a relationship with the non-human world, consciousness, story-telling and a consequential ethical sense, a metaphysical instinct, and an operating system based on symbolism and metaphors. Those characteristics (many of which overlap with the conditions of human thriving described by Martha Nussbaum) have ethical corollaries. The article builds on the work of Peter Hacker in contending that it is not only legitimate but necessary to derive ethics from biology and evolutionary history. Humans emerge from this examination, as they emerge from theological speculation and from the work of most creative artists, as unfathomable. The mysteriousness of humans is a reason for according them moral weight. The article suggests that ethicists should take the lead from creative artists, not vice versa.

Indexed as

Human CharacteristicsHistory, AncientHumansMetaphysicsSymbolismAtavismConsciousnessEthicsHunter-gathererIdentityMartha NussbaumMetaphorPeter hackerSymbolUpper palaeolithic

Identifiers

PMID40272649
PMCPMC13526105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.