DOCSLIB.ORG

Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-04-30 Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism Jimenez, Kieran Chad Jimenez, K. C. (2013). Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26002 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/662 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism by Kieran Jimenez A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2013 © Kieran Jimenez 2013 Abstract Hardly a week passes without new findings emerging from evolutionary psychology regarding how our view of morality has been influenced by our biological evolution. Evolutionary ethics is a normative project built upon these scientific insights. Evolutionary ethicists fall into two groups: substantiators or skeptics. Substantiators believe moral ideas can now be scientifically proven. Skeptics believe there are no moral truths because morality is just a biological adaptation. I believe the project of evolutionary ethics is misconceived. I argue that both the substantiators and the skeptics fail to show the direct relevance of biology to ethics. Moral truths can be established. But biology cannot support nor undercut these truths. I present the doctrine of moral realism as embodying the proper process of ethical inquiry, and I defend moral realism from evolutionary psychology’s skeptical conclusions. I determine that biology can indirectly inform ethics, but never guide it. The ethical realm is independent. ii Preface Before introducing my argument, I must say a few quick words in order to distinguish mine from that of others in the relevant literature. The following thesis is a critique of evolutionary ethics. That said, my critique is at once both narrower and broader than it may at first seem. My critique is narrower than it may at first seem because, in critiquing (and ultimately dismissing) evolutionary ethics, I do not also mean to dismiss evolutionary psychology. In addressing evolutionary ethics as, in some important sense, separable from evolutionary psychology, I depart from the conventional strategy of criticizing evolutionary ethics. The conventional critique (rightly) sees evolutionary ethics as unsound, and as based on evolutionary psychology, but therefore (wrongly) assumes that dismissing evolutionary ethics also entails dismissing evolutionary psychology. In the following pages, I articulate why I see the projects of evolutionary ethics and evolutionary psychology as separable, and why I see my narrow critique as superior to the usual, broad dismissal of both projects. Evolutionary ethics is unsound, but evolutionary psychology is viable. My critique of evolutionary ethics, far from aiming to thereby discredit evolutionary psychology, aims to ensure that we do not throw out blooming babies with unwholesome bathwater. As such, I believe these broader critiques are mistaken. My critique is broader than it may at first seem because, in critiquing (and ultimately dismissing) evolutionary ethics, I also mean to dismiss naturalistic ethics in general. Evolutionary ethics is just one particular form of naturalistic ethics, but my critique of it is meant to apply to all forms. All naturalistic approaches fail to appreciate what I present as the key insight of my critique: the independence of the ethical realm. That is, that all substantive ethical claims can only be supported (or undercut) by other substantive ethical claims. External (e.g. naturalistic, metaphysical, etc.) substantiation or skepticism is not possible. Unlike mine, many iii critiques of evolutionary ethics aim to dismiss evolutionary ethics without also thereby dismissing other forms of naturalistic ethics. I believe these narrower critiques are mistaken. Lastly, in perusing the relevant literature, I notice that advocates of opposing positions are often talking past each other, rather than talking to each other. I believe that this failure to communicate is due to the deeper failure to genuinely explore the other’s position. That is, to begin from the other’s premises, and follow the other’s argument to its conclusions. Rather, opposing advocates begin from distinct premises, and proceed to reach distinct conclusions. In contrast, I am concerned with a genuine exploration of opposing views. To that end, in critiquing both the substantiators and the skeptics, I begin from their own premises, and follow the logic (or lack thereof) of their own arguments. In so doing, I ensure that the conclusions I reach, though distinct from theirs, are not reached at in virtue of my having started from distinct premises. In other words, my conclusions, properly understood, are also their conclusions. Unless, of course, I have made some mistake(s) along the way… iv Acknowledgements Heartfelt thanks are due to my wonderful supervisor, Dr. Thomas Flanagan, for introducing me to bio-politics, and teaching me how to write. (Or, rather, how not to write!) I am also indebted to Dr. Joshua Goldstein, for first pulling back the curtain for me on the history of political philosophy—he has been an enthusiastic, patient, and constant mentor. Similarly, Dr. Pablo Policzer has continually prodded and challenged my views on the relationship between biology and morality, ensuring the question remained alive for me. The department’s administrative staff, particularly Judi Powell, have been an irreplaceable source of help, on matters big and small. My peers have supplied me with both motivation and relaxation. Sometime during the past few years, UC’s political science department became a home away from home, and I am grateful to have passed through when I did. And lastly, I thank my mother, Shauna, for listening to and encouraging initial thoughts, and for reading and appraising early drafts. Without her, this thesis would not have been possible. v Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Preface…………………………………………………………………………………….iii Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... ix Epigraph ...............................................................................................................................x INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 The Question ....................................................................................................................1 Evolutionary Psychology ............................................................................................1 Ethics Proper ..............................................................................................................2 Reformulating the Question .............................................................................................3 EP’s Descriptive and Normative Projects ........................................................................4 EP’s Double-pronged Normative Project ...................................................................4 The Argument ..................................................................................................................5 Layout ..............................................................................................................................6 PART I: THE DESCRIPTIVE REALM..............................................................................8 Chapter One: EP’s Descriptive Project ............................................................................8 Introduction ................................................................................................................8 Layout .........................................................................................................................9 Darwin’s Disciples .....................................................................................................9 The Sociobiology Debate .........................................................................................13 Biological bias ..........................................................................................................16 Reductionism ............................................................................................................21 Conclusion ................................................................................................................25
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Naturalistic Fallacy and Natural Law Methodology
    The Naturalistic Fallacy and Natural Law Methodology W. Matthews Grant It is customary to divide contemporary natural law theorists-at least those working broadly within the Thomistic tradition-into two main camps. In one camp are those such as John Finnis, Germain Grisez and Robert George, who deny that a natural law ethics need base itself on premises supplied by a methodologically prior philosophical anthropol­ ogy. According to these thinkers, practical reason, when reflecting on experience and considering possible ends of action, grasps in a non-in­ ferential act of understanding certain basic goods that ought to be pursued. Since these goods are not deduced, demonstrated, or derived from prior premises, they provide a set of self-evident or per se nota primary pre­ cepts from which all other precepts of the natural law may be derived. Because these primary precepts or basic goods are self-evident, natural law theorizing need not wait on the findings of anthropologists and phi­ losophers of human nature. 1 A rival school of natural law ethicists, comprised of such thinkers as Russell Bittinger, Ralph Mcinerny, Henry Veatch andAnthony Lisska, rejects the claims of Finnis and his colleagues for the autonomy of natural law I. For major statements and defenses of this position see John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, I980); Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus~ vol. I, Christian Moral Principles (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, I983);. Robert P. George, "Recent Criticism of Natural Law
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of the (Un)Natural
    Ethics of the (un)natural Start date 22nd January 2017 Time 10:00am – 16:45pm Venue Madingley Hall Madingley Cambridge Tutor Anna Smajdor Course code 1617NDX055 Director of Programmes Emma Jennings Public Programme Coordinator, Clare Kerr For further information on this course, please contact [email protected] or 01223 746237 To book See: www.ice.cam.ac.uk or telephone 01223 746262 Tutor biography Anna is Associate Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Oslo. Prior to that, she was Ethics Lecturer at Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia. She has been offering philosophy courses at ICE for several years on themes related to her research interests, such as 'Ethics of the (Un)natural' in 2016/17. When not teaching at ICE, Anna spends her time at the University of Oslo and collaborating with colleagues at the University of Umeå in Sweden, where she is part of a research project- 'Close personal relationships-children and the family'. University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, CB23 8AQ www.ice.cam.ac.uk Course programme 09:30 Terrace bar open for pre-course tea/coffee 10:00 – 11:15 Session 1 – Unnatural practices 11:15 Coffee 11:45 – 13:00 Session 2 – “Our niggardly stepmother” 13:00 Lunch 14:00 – 15:15 Session 3 – The naturalistic fallacy 15:15 Tea 15:30 – 16:45 Session 4 – Reasoning with nature 16:45 Day-school ends University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, CB23 8AQ www.ice.cam.ac.uk Course syllabus Aims: To engage students in a critical analysis of the ways in which concepts of nature are used in moral reasoning To explore the degree to which the ‘natural fallacy’ sweeps aside the possibility of reasoning from nature To analyse several key bioethical questions (animal research, conservation, human/animal chimaeras) on which concepts of nature have a bearing Content: This course will analyse the relationship between morality and nature in the context of key bioethical concerns, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution and Ethics 2
    It is still disputed, however, why moral behavior extends beyond a close circle of kin and reciprocal relationships: e.g., most people think stealing from anyone is wrong, not just stealing from family and friends. For moral behavior to evolve as we understand it today, there likely had to be selective pressures that pushed people to disregard their own 1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/10/11/evolution- interests in favor of their group’s interest.[3] Exactly and-ethics/ how morality extended beyond this close circle is debated, with many theories under consideration.[4] Evolution and Ethics 2. What Should We Do? Author: Michael Klenk Suppose our ability to understand and apply moral Category: Ethics, Philosophy of Science rules, as typically understood, can be explained by Word Count: 999 natural selection. Does evolution explain which rules We often follow what are considered basic moral we should follow?[5] rules: don’t steal, don’t lie, help others when we can. Some answer, “yes!” “Greed captures the essence of But why do we follow these rules, or any rules the evolutionary spirit,” says the fictional character understood as “moral rules”? Does evolution explain Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film Wall Street: “Greed why? If so, does evolution have implications for … is good. Greed is right.”[6] which rules we should follow, and whether we genuinely know this? Gekko’s claims about what is good and right and what we ought to be comes from what he thinks we This essay explores the relations between evolution naturally are: we are greedy, so we ought to be and morality, including evolution’s potential greedy.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociobiology and the Origins of Ethics
    SOCIOBIOLOGY AND THE ORIGINS OF ETHICS JULIO MUÑOZ-RUBIO ABSTRACT. According to sociobiology, ethics is an offspring of natural selection and totally explicable through biology. According to this discipline, any indi- vidual has reproduction as its supreme life objective, and thus ethical principles are directly originated from such objective. This criterion subordinates choice to “natural” duties and eradicates the power of human free will to generate values. Sociobiology falls into the natural fallacy as it assumes that a moral “duty” derived from a particular behavior is justified by the same existence of such behavior. This paper sustains that humans are qualitative different from the rest of animals since they exist in spheres afar from strict biological ones; sociobiology subjugates human freedom to the necessity realm and build up an ideological discourse. KEY WORDS. Ethics, evolutionary theory, ideology, naturalist fallacy, sociobi- ology, survival, liberty, necessity, dearth, free will. INTRODUCTION Sociobiological theory deals with animal species that are “social”, that is, they form groups, develop a certain division of labor, and cooperate in order to survive in the struggle for existence. For this reason, these species appear from the start as if they were endowed with moral attributes. “Social” animals possess qualities comparable to human beings not only insofar they are born and die, develop, reproduce, become ill, nor since they relate to other beings of the same and even of other species, but because, as they perform all these various functions in their peculiar ways, they exhibit emotional and behavioral patterns curiously akin to those of human beings. One of the main sources of sociobiology is Darwinist theory which, upon refuting creationism and affirming the principle of continuity in the evolution of species, denies the existence of overall qualitative differences between human beings and higher animals (Darwin 1981, Part I, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Implications of Darwinian Evolution for Human Reference
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2006 Moral Implications of Darwinian Evolution for Human Reference Based in Christian Ethics: a Critical Analysis and Response to the "Moral Individualism" of James Rachels Stephen Bauer Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Christianity Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, Evolution Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Bauer, Stephen, "Moral Implications of Darwinian Evolution for Human Reference Based in Christian Ethics: a Critical Analysis and Response to the "Moral Individualism" of James Rachels" (2006). Dissertations. 16. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/16 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FOR HUMAN PREFERENCE BASED IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE TO THE “MORAL INDIVIDUALISM” OF JAMES RACHELS A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Stephen Bauer November 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3248152 Copyright 2006 by Bauer, Stephen All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Past and Present Environments
    Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 2011, 275-278 DOI: 10.1556/JEP.9.2011.3.5 PAST AND PRESENT ENVIRONMENTS A review of Decision Making: Towards an Evolutionary Psychology of Rationality, by Mauro Maldonato. Sussex Academic Press (2010), 121 pages, $32.50. ISBN: 978-1-84519-421-5 (paperback) 1 2 CHELSEA ROSS AND ANDREAS WILKE Department of Psychology, Clarkson University In his book, Maldonato provides a thoughtful look at how early scholars viewed de- cision-making and rationality. He takes the reader on an illustrative journey through the historic passages of decision-making all the way to modern notions of a more limited rationality and how humans can make choices under risk and uncertainty. He discusses Kahneman and Tversky’s seminal work on heuristics and biases— “short cuts” that rely on little information and modest cognitive resources that sometimes lead to persistent failures, but usually allow the decision-maker to make fast and fairly reliable choices. Herbert Simon and Gerd Gigerenzer’s work on bounded rationality is discussed, with respect to its influence on decision-making research in economics and psychology. For Maldonato, the principle of bounded ra- tionality—that organisms have limited resources, such as time, information, and cognitive capacity with which to find solutions to the problems they face—is a key insight to understanding the evolution of decision-making. Maldonato proposes that evolutionary pressures urged the human mind to adopt a primitive decision-making process. For the purpose of survival, the majority of human choices had to be made by means of simple and fast decision strategies, because the decision-making system developed under general human cognitive limitations and from environmental pressures that selected for decision strategies suited for the harsh ancestral living environments as well as the resources at hand.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of Charles Darwin
    teorema Vol. XXVIII/2, 2009, pp. 123-133 [BIBLID 0210-1602 (2009) 28:2; pp. 123-133] ‘The Social Instincts Naturally Lead to the Golden Rule’: The Ethics of Charles Darwin John Mizzoni […] the social instincts […] with the aid of active intellectual powers and the effects of habit, naturally lead to the golden rule, “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise;” and this lies at the foundation of morality. [DARWIN, The Descent of Man (1871), p. 71] RESUMEN En The Descent of Man, Darwin discute una gran variedad de problemas éticos de manera exclusiva, dice él, desde la perspectiva de la historia natural. Intentando situar los puntos de vista de Darwin sobre la evolución y la ética dentro de las discusiones contemporáneas sobre filosofía moral reviso, en primer lugar, cómo el enfoque que Darwin hace de la evolución y la ética encaja en la metaética contemporánea, especialmente con cuatro teorías de tales como la del error, el expresi- vismo, el relativismo y el realismo. PALABRAS CLAVE: Darwin, metaética, teoría del error, expresivismo, relativismo moral, realismo moral. ABSTRACT In the The Descent of Man, Darwin discusses a wide variety of ethical issues, exclusively, he says, from the perspective of natural history. As an attempt to situate Darwin’s views on evolution and ethics into contemporary discussions of moral theory, in this paper I first look at how Darwin’s approach to evolution and ethics fits in with contemporary metaethical theory, specifically the four theories of error theory, expressivism, relativism, and realism. KEYWORDS: Darwin, metaethics, error theory, expressivism, moral relativism, moral realism.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Systems Theorizing Based on Evolutionary Psychology: an Interdisciplinary Review and Theory Integration Framework1
    Kock/IS Theorizing Based on Evolutionary Psychology THEORY AND REVIEW INFORMATION SYSTEMS THEORIZING BASED ON EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEW AND THEORY INTEGRATION FRAMEWORK1 By: Ned Kock on one evolutionary information systems theory—media Division of International Business and Technology naturalness theory—previously developed as an alternative to Studies media richness theory, and one non-evolutionary information Texas A&M International University systems theory, channel expansion theory. 5201 University Boulevard Laredo, TX 78041 Keywords: Information systems, evolutionary psychology, U.S.A. theory development, media richness theory, media naturalness [email protected] theory, channel expansion theory Abstract Introduction Evolutionary psychology holds great promise as one of the possible pillars on which information systems theorizing can While information systems as a distinct area of research has take place. Arguably, evolutionary psychology can provide the potential to be a reference for other disciplines, it is the key to many counterintuitive predictions of behavior reasonable to argue that information systems theorizing can toward technology, because many of the evolved instincts that benefit from fresh new insights from other fields of inquiry, influence our behavior are below our level of conscious which may in turn enhance even more the reference potential awareness; often those instincts lead to behavioral responses of information systems (Baskerville and Myers 2002). After that are not self-evident. This paper provides a discussion of all, to be influential in other disciplines, information systems information systems theorizing based on evolutionary psych- research should address problems that are perceived as rele- ology, centered on key human evolution and evolutionary vant by scholars in those disciplines and in ways that are genetics concepts and notions.
    [Show full text]
  • 003B Alhoff 83
    Hist. Phil. Life Sci., 25 (2003), 83-111 ---83 Evolutionary Ethics from Darwin to Moore Fritz Allhoff Department of Philosophy, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA ABSTRACT - Evolutionary ethics has a long history, dating all the way back to Charles Darwin.1 Almost immediately after the publication of the Origin, an immense interest arose in the moral implications of Darwinism and whether the truth of Darwinism would undermine traditional ethics. Though the biological thesis was certainly exciting, nobody suspected that the impact of the Origin would be confined to the scientific arena. As one historian wrote, ‘whether or not ancient populations of armadillos were transformed into the species that currently inhabit the new world was certainly a topic about which zoologists could disagree. But it was in discussing the broader implications of the theory…that tempers flared and statements were made which could transform what otherwise would have been a quiet scholarly meeting into a social scandal’ (Farber 1994, 22). Some resistance to the biological thesis of Darwinism sprung from the thought that it was incompatible with traditional morality and, since one of them had to go, many thought that Darwinism should be rejected. However, some people did realize that a secular ethics was possible so, even if Darwinism did undermine traditional religious beliefs, it need not have any effects on moral thought.2 Before I begin my discussion of evolutionary ethics from Darwin to Moore, I would like to make some more general remarks about its development.3 There are three key events during this history of evolutionary ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Genetics
    Evolutionary Genetics Ruben C. Arslan & Lars Penke Institute of Psychology Georg August University Göttingen Forthcoming in D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. September 17, 2014 Corresponding author: Ruben C. Arslan Georg August University Göttingen Biological Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment Georg Elias Müller Institute of Psychology Goßlerstr. 14 37073 Göttingen, Germany Tel.: +49 551 3920704 Email: [email protected] 1 Introduction When Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution, he knew nothing about genetics. Hence, one of its biggest weaknesses was that Darwin had to base it on crude ideas of inheritance. Around the same time, Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance, but the scientific community initially failed to appreciate his work’s importance. It was only in the 1930’s that Dobzhansky, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Mayr and others unified genetics and the theory of evolution in the ‘modern synthesis’. Still, the modern synthesis was built on a basic understanding of genetics, with genes merely being particulate inherited information. The basics of molecular genetics, like the structure of DNA, were not discovered until the 1950’s. When modern evolutionary psychology emerged from ethology and sociobiology in the late 1980’s, it had a strong emphasis on human universals, borne from both the assumption that complex adaptations are monomorphic (or sexually dimorphic) and have to go back to at least the last common ancestor of all humans, and the methodological proximity to experimental cognitive psychology, which tends to treat individual differences as statistical noise. As a consequence, genetic differences between people were marginalized in evolutionary psychology (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalness and Unnaturalness in Contemporary Bioethics Anna Smajdor 57 Artikkel Samtale & Kritikk Spalter Brev
    ARTIKKEL SAMTALE & KRITIKK SPALTER BREV Meta-ethical and methodological considerations The is/ought distinction and the naturalistic fallacy FRA FORSKNINGSFRONTEN Nature appears in bioethics in a number of guises and con- There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has texts. At the most basic level, people may feel that it is mo- not been hailed as an insult to some god. But if every rally wrong to alter, distort or subvert natural processes. physical and chemical invention is a blasphemy, every NATURALNESS AND Leon Kass, for example, argues that an intuitive recoiling biological invention is a perversion. There is hardly one from interventions such as cloning that distort or frag- which, on first being brought to the notice of an observer ment the natural processes of reproduction, is a powerful from any nation which had not previously heard of their UNNATURALNESS IN indicator that such interventions are unethical (1998:3– existence, would not appear to him as indecent and un- 61). These are perhaps the most obvious occasions when natural. (Haldane 1924) nature plays an explicit role in informing moral reaso- CONTEMPORARY ning in bioethics. However, there are many other ways in Peter Singer and Deane Wells state categorically that “… which nature colours the concepts and themes employed there is no valid argument from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’ in bioethical deliberation. For example, bioethicists may (2006:9-26). Similar views can be found in the work of BIOETHICS be concerned with the natural world, or nature, especially many bioethicists. A report on the ethics of grafting hu- in terms of our moral responsibility to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Psychology in the Service of Moral Psychology: a Possible Future for Ethics William S
    Skidmore College Creative Matter Philosophy Faculty Scholarship Philosophy Department 2011 Evolutionary Psychology in the Service of Moral Psychology: A Possible Future for Ethics William S. Lewis Skidmore College Follow this and additional works at: https://creativematter.skidmore.edu/phil_rel_fac_schol Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Lewis, W. S. (2011). Evolutionary Psychology in the Service of Moral Philosophy: A Possible Future for Ethics?. Journal Of Speculative Philosophy, 25(1), 48-63. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Creative Matter. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Creative Matter. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Evolutionary Psychology in the Service of Moral Philosophy, A Possible Future for Ethics? William S. Lewis Skidmore College Draft of “Evolutionary Psychology in the Service of Moral Psychology: A Possible Future for Ethics.” Journal of Speculative Philosophy Vol. 25, No. 1 (2011): 48-63. “Someone may ask, “What is the difference, then, between moral philosophy and moral psychology?” The answer may be that there is no interesting difference and that the issue is of interest only to university administrators.”1 In “The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life (1891),” William James provides a rough taxonomy of the state of ethical philosophy at the time that he is writing. Making a division between psychological approaches that identify the good with the feeling of pleasure derived by a naturally evolved organism and metaphysical approaches which hold that the good is conceptual, James argues that both are equally goods and that they each imply similar obligation.
    [Show full text]