Law and Philosophy 29 (1):31-74 (2010)
Evolutionary biology – or, more precisely, two (purported) applications of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, namely, evolutionary psychology and what has been called human behavioral biology – is on the cusp of becoming the new rage among legal scholars looking for interdisciplinary insights into the law. We argue that as the actual science stands today, evolutionary biology offers nothing to help with questions about legal regulation of behavior. Only systematic misrepresentations or lack of understanding of the relevant biology, together with far-reaching analytical and philosophical confusions, have led anyone to think otherwise. Evolutionary accounts are etiological accounts of how a trait evolved. We argue that an account of causal etiology could be relevant to law if (1) the account of causal etiology is scientifically well-confirmed, and (2) there is an explanation of how the well-confirmed etiology bears on questions of development (what we call the Environmental Gap Objection). We then show that the accounts of causal etiology that might be relevant are not remotely well-confirmed by scientific standards. We argue, in particular, that (a) evolutionary psychology is not entitled to assume selectionist accounts of human behaviors, (b) the assumptions necessary for the selectionist accounts to be true are not warranted by standard criteria for theory choice, and (c) only confusions about levels of explanation of human behavior create the appearance that understanding the biology of behavior is important. We also note that no response to the Environmental Gap Objection has been proffered. In the concluding section of the article, we turn directly to the work of Owen Jones, a leading proponent of the relevance of evolutionary biology to law, and show that he does not come to terms with any of the fundamental problems identified in this article
|Keywords||Philosophy Logic Political Science Social Sciences, general Law Theory/Law Philosophy Philosophy of Law|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
New Directions in Legal Scholarship.Alan Strudler - 2010 - Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (3):503-531.
Law and the Evolutionary Turn: The Relevance of Evolutionary Psychology for Legal Positivism.Arthur Dyevre - 2014 - Ratio Juris 27 (3):364-386.
Similar books and articles
Intelligent Design and the NFL Theorems.Olle Häggström - 2007 - Biology and Philosophy 22 (2):217-230.
How Evolutionary Biology Presently Pervades Cell and Molecular Biology.Michel Morange - 2010 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 41 (1):113 - 120.
Commonsense Darwinism: Evolution, Morality, and the Human Condition.John Lemos - 2008 - Open Court.
Popper, Falsifiability, and Evolutionary Biology.David N. Stamos - 1996 - Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):161-191.
Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology. XII. Against Evolutionary Ethics.Wim J. van der Steen - 1999 - Acta Biotheoretica 47 (1):41-57.
Methodological Problems in Evolutionary Biology VI. The Force of Evolutionary Epistemology.Wim J. Steen - 1986 - Acta Biotheoretica 35 (3).
Added to index2009-05-18
Total downloads83 ( #63,201 of 2,171,820 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #117,896 of 2,171,820 )
How can I increase my downloads?