Ruse's Darwinian meta-ethics: A critique [Book Review]
Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439 (1993)
|Abstract||Michael Ruse, in Taking Darwin Seriously seeks to establish that taking Darwin seriously requires us to treat morality as subjective and naturalistic. I argue that, if morality is not objective, then we have no good reason for being moral if we can avoid detection and punishment. As a consequence, we will only continue to behave morally as long as we remain ignorant of Ruse''s theory, that is, as long as the cat is not let out of the bag. Ruse offers a number of arguments to show that his theory can overcome such problems. I argue that they all fail. Ruse also argues that he can offer a naturalistic account of ethics which steps around the naturalistic fallacy and avoids the confusion of reasons with causes. His principal argument for this view is an analogy between spiritualism and morality. I argue that this analogy fails.|
|Keywords||Meta-ethics Ruse sociology ethical subjectivism ethical naturalism naturalistic fallacy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
William Dembski, Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.
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.
William A. Rottschaefer & David Martinsen (1991). The Insufficience of Supervenient Explanations of Moral Actions: Really Taking Darwin and the Naturalistic Fallacy Seriously. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 6 (4):439-445.
Jonathan Barrett (1991). Really Taking Darwin and the Naturalistic Fallacy Seriously: An Objection to Rottschaefer and Martinsen. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 6 (4):433-437.
Peter G. Woolcock (2000). Objectivity and Illusion in Evolutionary Ethics: Comments on Waller. Biology and Philosophy 15 (1).
James A. Ryan (1997). Taking the 'Error' Out of Ruse's Error Theory. Biology and Philosophy 12 (3):385-397.
Carlos Mariscal (2011). Epistemology, Necessity, and Evolution: A Critical Review of Michael Ruse's Philosophy After Darwin. Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):449-457.
John Lemos (2001). A Defense of Darwinian Accounts of Morality. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31 (3):361-385.
Alexander Rosenberg (1980). Ruse's Treatment of the Evidence for Evolution: A Reconsideration. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:83 - 93.
Bruce N. Waller (1996). Moral Commitment Without Objectivity or Illusion: Comments on Ruse and Woolcock. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):245-254.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #40,509 of 722,707 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,707 )
How can I increase my downloads?