Social Philosophy and Policy 8 (1):121-140 (1990)

Abstract
By what steps, historically, did morality emerge? Our remote ancestors evolved into social animals. Sociality requires, among other things, restraints on disruptive sexual, hostile, aggressive, vengeful, and acquisitive behavior. Since we are innately social and not social by convention, we can assume the biological evolution of the emotional equipment – numerous predispositions to want, fear, feel anxious or secure – required for social living, just as we can assume cultural evolution of various means to control antisocial behavior and reinforce the prosocial kind. Small clans consisting, say, of several extended families whose members cooperated in hunting, gathering, defense, and child-rearing could not exist without a combination of innate and social restraints on individual behavior. I shall argue for a naturalistic theory of morality, by which I do not mean the definitional claims G.E. Moore sought to refute, but a broader and more complex theory that maintains that a sufficient understanding of human nature, history, and culture can fully explain morality; that nothing is left hanging. A theory that coherently brings together the needed biological, psychological, and cultural facts I shall call a philosophical anthropology; it is a theory that: 1) takes the good for humans – both an ultimate good and other important goods – to depend on human nature; 2) argues that a rudimentary but improving scientific and philosophical theory of human nature now exists, and thus denies that people are “essenceless”; 3) takes this theory to be evolutionary and historical, making the question “How did morality originate?” pivotal for ethical theory, but leaves open the empirical question of the relative importance of biological and cultural evolution; and 4) takes the origin of the moral ideas to be explainable in terms of human nature and history.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0265052500003770
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,518
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Can Biology Make Ethics Objective?Richmond Campbell - 1996 - Biology and Philosophy 11 (1):21-31.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Biological Base of Morality?Paul R. Lawrence - 2004 - The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 4:59-79.
The Biological Roots of Morality.Francisco J. Ayala - 1987 - Biology and Philosophy 2 (3):235-252.
The Biological Base of Morality?Paul R. Lawrence - 2004 - The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 2004:59-79.
Nomos and Phusis in Democritus and Plato.C. C. W. Taylor - 2007 - Social Philosophy and Policy 24 (2):1-20.
Is There a Human Nature?Mikael Stenmark - 2012 - Zygon 47 (4):890-902.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-02-17

Total views
48 ( #212,103 of 2,421,643 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #152,248 of 2,421,643 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes