Biology and Philosophy 11 (1):21-31 (1996)
A familiar position regarding the evolution of ethics is that biology can explain the origin of morals but that in doing so it removes the possibility of their having objective justification. This position is set fourth in detail in the writings of Michael Ruse but it is also taken by many others, notably, Jeffrie Murphy, Andrew Oldenquist, and Allan Gibbard, I argue the contrary view that biology provides a justification of the existence of morals which is objective in the sense of being independent of people's moral views and their particular desires and preferences. Ironically, my argument builds on the very premises which are supposed to undermine the objectivity of morals. But my argument stops short of claiming that biology can give us a basis for justifying some particular system of morals. Drawing on an analogy with social contract theory, I offer a general reason why this more ambitious project cannot be expected to succeed if the argument is pursued along the same lines. Finally, I give reasons why the possibility of objective justification for a particular morality cannot be ruled out in general on evolutionary grounds
|Keywords||Morality evolution justification objectivity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment.Allan Gibbard - 1990 - Harvard University Press.
Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy.Michael Ruse - 1986 - Prometheus Books.
Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior.Robert Richards - 1989 - Journal of the History of Biology 22 (2):361-367.
Citations of this work BETA
Metaethics and the Empirical Sciences.Richard Joyce - 2006 - Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):133 – 148.
On the Normative Significance of Experimental Moral Psychology.Victor Kumar & Richmond Campbell - 2012 - Philosophical Psychology 25 (3):311-330.
Bridging the Is/Ought Gap with Evolutionary Biology: Is This a Bridge Too Far?John Lemos - 1999 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 37 (4):559-577.
Similar books and articles
Taking the 'Error' Out of Ruse's Error Theory.James A. Ryan - 1997 - Biology and Philosophy 12 (3):385-397.
Ruse's Darwinian Meta-Ethics: A Critique. [REVIEW]Peter Woolcock - 1993 - Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439.
The Biological Sciences Can Act as a Ground for Ethics.Michael Ruse - 2010 - In Francisco José Ayala & Robert Arp (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Evolutionary Naturalism and the Objectivity of Morality.John Collier & Michael Stingl - 1993 - Biology and Philosophy 8 (1):47-60.
Objectivity and Illusion in Evolutionary Ethics: Comments on Waller.Peter G. Woolcock - 2000 - Biology and Philosophy 15 (1):39-60.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #129,881 of 2,171,798 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,702 of 2,171,798 )
How can I increase my downloads?