In Francisco José Ayala & Robert Arp (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology. Wiley-Blackwell (2010)
The question whether ethical behavior is biologically determined may refer either to the capacity for ethics (i.e., the proclivity to judge human actions as either right or wrong), or to the moral norms accepted by human beings for guiding their actions. I herein propose: (1) that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature; and (2) that moral norms are products of cultural evolution, not of biological evolution. Humans exhibit ethical behavior by nature because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one’s own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution not because it is adaptive in itself, but as a necessary consequence of man’s eminent intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection. That is, morally evolved as an exaptation, not as an adaptation. Since Darwin’s time there have been evolutionists proposing that the norms of morality are derived from biological evolution. Sociobiologists represent the most recent and most subtle version of that proposal. The sociobiologists' argument is that human ethical norms are sociocultural correlates of behaviors fostered by biological evolution. I argue that such proposals are misguided and do not escape the naturalistic fallacy. The isomorphism between the behaviors promoted by natural selection and those sanctioned by moral norms exist only with respect to the consequences of the behaviors; the underlying causations are completely disparate.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Scientific Realism and Philosophical Naturalism in Šmajs’ Evolutionary Ontology.Inéz Melichová & Robert Burgan - 2013 - Human Affairs 23 (4):556-575.
Evolutionary Aspects of Self- and World Consciousness in Vertebrates.Franco Fabbro, Salvatore M. Aglioti, Massimo Bergamasco, Andrea Clarici & Jaak Panksepp - 2015 - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9.
Similar books and articles
Human Kinds and Biological Kinds: Some Similarities and Differences.John Dupré - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (5):892-900.
Mind Reading, Deception and the Evolution of Kantian Moral Agents.Alejandro Rosas - 2004 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34 (2):127–139.
Beyond Evolution: Human Nature and the Limits of Evolutionary Explanation.Anthony O'Hear - 1997 - Oxford University Press.
Marcuse, Human Nature, and the Foundations of Ethical Norms.Jeff Noonan - 2008 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 34 (3):267-286.
Bridging the Gap Between Human Kinds and Biological Kinds.Marc Ereshefsky - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (5):912-921.
Darwinian Evolutionary Ethics: Between Patriotism and Sympathy.Peter J. Richerson & Richard Boyd - 2004 - In Phillip Clayton & Jeffrey Schloss (eds.), Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. pp. 50--77.
Closing the Gap Between Ideal and Real Behavior: Scientific Vs. Engineering Approaches to Normativity.Sergei Gepshtein - 2009 - Philosophical Psychology 22 (1):61 – 75.
Niche Construction, Biological Evolution, and Cultural Change.Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee & Marcus W. Feldman - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):131-146.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads163 ( #28,577 of 2,172,833 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #75,736 of 2,172,833 )
How can I increase my downloads?