David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 2004:235-238 (2004)
There are explicit claims to Darwinian thinking in numerous fields of study. A common temptation associated with this method across disciplines is to call some attributes “natural” and others “cultural” in origin. But this distinction can be dangerous—particularly when applied to ethics. When employing the Darwinian method, ideas should be evaluated in the same way whether the characteristics are described as natural or as cultural. We should ascertain the moral usefulness of a trait irrespective of its genetic basis or lack thereof. The nature/culture distinction is irrelevant to ethics. If Darwinian thinking connotes or implies an important difference, it is a dangerous idea to moral theory. I don’t believe the method denotes such a distinction, and in fact helps ethicists ask and answer many interesting questions that would not have arisen without it. But great care should be taken
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kenneth J. Sufka & Derek D. Turner (2005). An Evolutionary Account of Chronic Pain: Integrating the Natural Method in Evolutionary Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 18 (2):243-257.
Moses L. Pava (2009). The Exaggerated Moral Claims of Evolutionary Psychologists. Journal of Business Ethics 85 (3):391 - 401.
Jennifer McCrickerd (2001). Moral Judgments and the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction. Journal of Philosophical Research 26:423-433.
Frank Lucash (1993). The Philosophical Method of the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect and its Application to the Ethics. Philosophy and Theology 7 (3):311-322.
Bence Nanay (2011). Popper's Darwinian Analogy. Perspectives on Science 19 (3):337-354.
J. B. Schneewind (1991). Natural Law, Skepticism, and Methods of Ethics. Journal of the History of Ideas 52 (2):289-308.
Christine Clavien (forthcoming). Evolution, Society, and Ethics: Social Darwinism Versus Evolutionary Ethics. In Thomas Heams (ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Biology (provis. Title). Springer.
Ronald Sluys (1983). On a Functional-Morphological Approach to Phylogenetic Reconstruction: A Critique. Acta Biotheoretica 32 (1).
Howard Sankey (2002). Realism, Method and Truth. In Michele Marsonet (ed.), The Problem of Realism. Ashgate. 64.
James Blachowicz (1995). Elimination, Correction and Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9 (1):5 – 17.
Gabriele Gava (2013). Kant's Synthetic and Analytic Method in the Critique of Pure Reason and the Distinction Between Philosophical and Mathematical Syntheses. European Journal of Philosophy 22 (2).
Norbert Steinkamp & Bert Gordijn (2003). Ethical Case Deliberation on the Ward. A Comparison of Four Methods. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (3):235-246.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads3 ( #293,241 of 1,101,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #177,551 of 1,101,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?