- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Woolcock, Ruse, again
Biology and Philosophy 15 (5):733-735 (2000)
Abstract
I summarize recent discussion in this journal and in Woolcock(1999) of the relevance of evolution to the question of thereality of moral rightness and wrongness. I show thata satisfactory version of Ruse-type evolutionaryethics has been adequately defended.My notes
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.
Objectivity and illusion in evolutionary ethics: Comments on Waller.Peter G. Woolcock - 2000 - Biology and Philosophy 15 (1):39-60.
Intelligent design's contribution to the debate over evolution: A reply to Henry Morris.William Dembski - manuscript
Epistemology, necessity, and evolution: a critical review of Michael Ruse’s Philosophy After Darwin. [REVIEW]Carlos Mariscal - 2011 - Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):449-457.
Entrusting the life that has evolved: A response to Michael Ruse's Ruse.Philip Hefner - 1994 - Zygon 29 (1):67-73.
Michael Ruse's Design for Living.Robert J. Richards - 2004 - Journal of the History of Biology 37 (1):25 - 38.
Really taking Darwin seriously: An alternative to Michael Ruse's Darwinian metaethics. [REVIEW]William A. Rottschaefer & David Martinsen - 1990 - Biology and Philosophy 5 (2):149-173.
Moral commitment without objectivity or illusion: Comments on Ruse and Woolcock.Bruce N. Waller - 1996 - Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):245-254.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
29 (#536,973)
6 months
1 (#1,510,037)
2009-01-28
Downloads
29 (#536,973)
6 months
1 (#1,510,037)
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
The case against evolutionary ethics today.Peter G. Woolcock - 1999 - In Jane Maienschein & Michael Ruse (eds.), Biology and the foundation of ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 276--306.
Review of Michael Ruse: Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy. [REVIEW]Michael Ruse - 1988 - Ethics 98 (2):400-402.
Coherentist Naturalism in Ethics.James A. Ryan - 2000 - Journal of Philosophical Research 25:471-487.
Taking the ‘Error’ Out of Ruse‘s Error Theory.James A. Ryan - 1997 - Biology and Philosophy 12 (3):385-397.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-7c76586df8-pp8v9 uwo