David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Zygon 30 (3):357-367 (1995)
The philosopher Michael Ruse accounts for the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, and thus the origin of distinctively moral obligations like that of altruism, in genetic terms. This is part of an attempt to develop a philosophy that takes Darwin seriously by substituting respectable scientific entities, specifically those of evolutionary biology, for suspect theological or philosophical ones, like God or the transcendental ego, as a basis for addressing philosophical questions. Pragmatists take Darwin seriously, but in a very different way from that proposed by Ruse. Darwin introduced a "logic" into the study of living things-including human beings, the human mind, and culture-that leads philosophers to ask new and different questions about morality rather than trying to supply new answers to the same old questions. This essay contrasts these two different ways of taking Darwin seriously for purposes of philosophy and claims certain advantages for the pragmatist way over Ruse's.
|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
Michael Ruse (ed.) (2009). Philosophy After Darwin: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Princeton University Press.
Michael Ruse (1975). Darwin's Debt to Philosophy: An Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F.W. Herschel and William Whewell on the Development of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 6 (2):159-181.
Ben Fraser (2010). Adaptation, Exaptation, By-Products and Spandrels in Evolutionary Explanations of Morality. Biological Theory 5 (3):223-227.
Michael Ruse (1975). Book Review:Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community David Hull. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 42 (3):338-.
Carlos Mariscal (2011). Epistemology, Necessity, and Evolution: A Critical Review of Michael Ruse's Philosophy After Darwin. Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):449-457.
Robert J. Richards (2004). Michael Ruse's Design for Living. Journal of the History of Biology 37 (1):25 - 38.
Peter Woolcock (1993). Ruse's Darwinian Meta-Ethics: A Critique. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439.
Bruce N. Waller (1996). Moral Commitment Without Objectivity or Illusion: Comments on Ruse and Woolcock. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):245-254.
William A. Rottschaefer & David Martinsen (1990). Really Taking Darwin Seriously: An Alternative to Michael Ruse's Darwinian Metaethics. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 5 (2):149-173.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #256,049 of 1,101,782 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #292,275 of 1,101,782 )
How can I increase my downloads?