David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 10 (2):129-180 (1995)
Gibbard''s theory of rationality is evolutionary in terms of its result as well as its underpinning argument. The result is that judgments about what is rational are analyzed as being similar to judgments of morality — in view of what Darwin suggests concerning the latter. According to the Darwinian theory, moral judgments are based on sentiments which evolve to promote the survival and welfare of human societies. On Gibbard''s theory, rationality judgments should be similarly regarded as expressing emotional attachments to behavioral norms which originate and function to coordinate social interaction. Consequently, Gibbard''s theory of rationality might be used to illuminate Darwin''s theory of morality, and vice versa. Additionally, as argued in the present essay, both can be further elaborated, and defended, by developing related themes in philosophical ethics: viz., connected with Hume and 20th-century emotivists. The main problem is that this general Darwinian approach faces widespread opposition nowadays, not only in ethics but in philosophy of science. The purpose of this essay is to analyze Gibbard''s theory, critically and constructively, with emphasis on the pertinent commonalities in Darwin, Hume and the emotivists, while also critically addressing their common enemies. The pervasive methodological orientation is to relate this analysis to (philosophy of) science in general, and biological science in particular.
|Keywords||Evolution explanation morality rationality normative communication fact/value distinction utilitarianism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
María José Frápolli & Neftalí Villanueva (2012). Minimal Expressivism. Dialectica 66 (4):471-487.
Similar books and articles
António Zilhão (ed.) (2005). Evolution, Rationality, and Cognition: A Cognitive Science for the Twenty-First Century. Routledge.
Jan Narveson (2010). The Relevance of Decision Theory to Ethical Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (5):497-520.
Daniel Hunter & Reed Richter (1978). Counterfactuals and Newcomb's Paradox. Synthese 39 (2):249 - 261.
W. S. Cooper (1989). How Evolutionary Biology Challenges the Classical Theory of Rational Choice. Biology and Philosophy 4 (4):457-481.
Wolfgang Spohn (2002). The Many Facets of the Theory of Rationality. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):249-264.
Allan Gibbard (1983). A Noncognitivistic Analysis of Rationality in Action. Social Theory and Practice 9 (2/3):199-221.
Martin Bunzl (2002). Evolutionary Games Without Rationality? Philosophy of the Social Sciences 32 (3):365-378.
Christine Clavien (2009). Gibbard's Expressivism: An Interdisciplinary Critical Analysis. Philosophical Psychology 22 (4):465 – 485.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #65,308 of 1,098,429 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #285,057 of 1,098,429 )
How can I increase my downloads?