Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:18:19.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Evolutionary Debunking Argument Against Moral Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2016

JUSTIN MORTON
JUSTIN MORTON*
Affiliation:
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Evolutionary debunking arguments (EDAs) claim that evolution has influenced our moral faculties in such a way that, if moral realism is true, then we have no positive moral knowledge. I present several popular objections to the standard version of this argument before offering a new EDA that has clear advantages in responding to these objections. Whereas the Standard EDA argues that evolution has selected for many moral beliefs with certain contents, this New EDA claims that evolution has selected for one belief: belief in the claim that categorical reasons exist. If moral realism is true, then this claim is entailed by all positive moral claims, and belief in it is defeated due to evolutionary influence. This entails that if realism is true, then we have no positive moral knowledge. While there may be objections against this New EDA, it is much stronger than the Standard EDA, and one realists ought to worry about.

Keywords

evolutionary debunking argumentmoral realismmoral knowledgecategorical reason
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Summer 2016 , pp. 233 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bedke, Matthew. (2009) ‘Intuitive Non-Naturalism Meets Cosmic Coincidence’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 90, 188–209.Google Scholar
Behrends, Jeff. (2013) ‘Meta-normative Realism, Evolution, and Our Reasons to Survive’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94, 486–502.Google Scholar
Brosnan, Kevin. (2011) ‘Do the Evolutionary Origins of Our Moral Beliefs Undermine Moral Knowledge?’. Biology and Philosophy, 26, 51–64.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. (2012) ‘Morality and Mathematics: The Evolutionary Challenge’. Ethics, 122, 313–40.Google Scholar
Copp, David. (2008) ‘Darwinian Skepticism About Moral Realism’. Philosophical Issues, 18, 186–206.Google Scholar
Enoch, David. (2010) ‘The Epistemological Challenge to Metanormative Realism: How Best to Understand It, and How to Cope with It’. Philosophical Studies, 148, 413–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David. (2011) Taking Morality Seriously. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, Stephen. (2008) ‘The Error in the Error Theory.’ The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86, 347–69.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, William. (2014) ‘Why There is No Darwinian Dilemma for Ethical Realism’. In Bergmann, Michael and Kain, Patrick (eds.), Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 237–55.Google Scholar
Foot, Phillippa. (1972) ‘Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives’. Philosophical Review, 81, 305–16.Google Scholar
Greene, Joshua. (2008) ‘The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul’. In Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (ed.), Moral Psychology, vol. 3: The Neuroscience of Morality, Emotions, Brain Disorders and Development (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 35–80.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, John. (2004) Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Justin. (Forthcoming) ‘Evolution and the Epistemological Challenge to Moral Realism’. In Ruse, Michael and Richard, Robert (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Evolutionary Ethics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael. (2008a) Ethical Intuitionism. New York: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael. (2008b) ‘Revisionary Intuitionism’. Social Philosophy and Policy, 25, 368–92.Google Scholar
James, Scott. (2011) An Introduction to Evolutionary Ethics. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard. (2001) The Myth of Morality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard. (2007) The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard (2013) ‘Ethics and Evolution’. In Lafollette, Hugh and Persson, Ingmar (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, 2nd edition (Malden, MA: Blackwell), 123–47.Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard. (2016) ‘Evolution, Truth-Tracking, and Moral Skepticism’. In his Essays in Moral Skepticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 142–58.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. (2007) ‘Biology and Ethics’. In Copp, David (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 163–85.Google Scholar
Klein, Peter. (1971) ‘A Proposed Definition of Propositional Knowledge’. The Journal of Philosophy, 68, 471–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Keith, and Paxson, Thomas Jr. (1969) ‘Knowledge: Undefeated Justified True Belief’. The Journal of Philosophy, 66, 225–37.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. (2011) On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. (1993) Warrant and Proper Function. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Jonas. (2011) ‘In Defense of Moral Error Theory’. In Brady, Michael (ed.), New Waves in Metaethics (Aldershot: Palgrave Macmillan), 62–84.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael, and Wilson, E. O.. (1986) ‘Moral Philosophy as Applied Science’. Philosophy, 61, 173–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2009) ‘A Defense of Categorical Reasons’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 109, 189–206.Google Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2012) ‘Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism and Moral Knowledge’. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 7, 1–37.Google Scholar
Singer, Peter. (2005) ‘Ethics and Intuitions’. The Journal of Ethics, 9, 331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skarsaune, Knut. (2011) ‘Darwin and Moral Realism: Survival of the Iffiest’. Philosophical Studies, 152, 229–43.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2006) ‘A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value’. Philosophical Studies, 127, 109–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2009) ‘In Defense of Future Tuesday Indifference: Ideally Coherent Eccentrics and the Contingency of What Matters’. Philosophical Issues, 19, 273–98.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2010) ‘What is Constructivism in Ethics and Metaethics?’. Philosophy Compass, 5, 363–84.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2012) ‘Coming to Terms with Contingency: Humean Constructivism about Practical Reason’. In Lenman, Jimmy and Shemmer, Yonatan (eds.), Constructivism in Practical Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 40–59.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (Forthcoming a) ‘How to Be a Relativist About Normativity’. Journal of the American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (Forthcoming b) ‘Objectivity and Truth: You'd Better Rethink It’. In Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 11 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Vavova, Katia. (2014) ‘Debunking Evolutionary Debunking’. In Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 9 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 76–101.Google Scholar
Vavova, Katia. (2015) ‘Evolutionary Debunking of Moral Realism’. Philosophy Compass, 5, 104–16.Google Scholar
Wielenberg, Erik. (2010) ‘On the Evolutionary Debunking of Morality’. Ethics, 120, 441–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wielenberg, Erik. (2014) Robust Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. (1981) ‘Internal and External Reasons’. In Williams, Bernard (ed.), Moral Luck (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 101–14.Google Scholar