Really taking Darwin and the naturalistic fallacy seriously: An objection to Rottschaefer and Martinsen [Book Review]

Biology and Philosophy 6 (4):433-437 (1991)

Abstract
Out of a concern to respect the naturalistic fallacy, Ruse (1986) argues for the possibility of causal, but not justificatory, explanations of morality in terms of evolutionary processes. In a discussion of Ruse's work, Rottschaefer and Martinsen (1990) claim that he erroneously limits the explanatory scope of evolutionary concepts, because he fails to see that one can have objective moral properties without committing either of two forms of the naturalistic fallacy, if one holds that moral properties supervene on non-moral properties. In this short paper I argue that Rottschaefer and Martinsen's solution fails. If one takes moral properties to supervene on non-moral properties, then either one ends up committing one of the two forms of the naturalistic fallacy or else one is left postulating unbelievable brute metaphysical facts.
Keywords Ethics  evolution  evolutionary ethics  M. Ruse  naturalistic fallacy  supervenience
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00128712
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 45,629
External links

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

The Structure of Biological Science.Alexander Rosenberg - 1985 - Cambridge University Press.
Spreading the world.Simon Blackburn - 1986 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 176 (3):385-387.
Concepts of Supervenience.Jaegwon Kim - 1984 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45 (December):153-76.
Studies in the Logic of Explanation.Carl Hempel & Paul Oppenheim - 1948 - Philosophy of Science 15 (2):135-175.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Ruse's Darwinian Meta-Ethics: A Critique. [REVIEW]Peter Woolcock - 1993 - Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
72 ( #119,976 of 2,280,568 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #408,372 of 2,280,568 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature