Synthese

, Volume 194, Issue 4, pp 1031–1055 | Cite as

Nothing in ethics makes sense except in the light of evolution? Natural goodness, normativity, and naturalism

Article

Abstract

Foot (2001), Hursthouse (1999), and Thompson (2008), along with other philosophers, have argued for a metaethical position, the natural goodness approach, that claims moral judgments are, or are on a par with, teleological claims made in the biological sciences. Specifically, an organism’s flourishing is characterized by how well they function as specified by the species to which they belong. In this essay, I first sketch the Neo-Aristotelian natural goodness approach. Second, I argue that critics who claim that this sort of approach is inconsistent with evolutionary biology due to its species essentialism are incorrect. Third, I contend that combining the natural goodness account of natural-historical judgments with our best account of natural normativity, the selected effects theory of function, leads to implausible moral judgments. This is so if selected effects function are understood in terms of evolution by natural selection, but also if they are characterized in terms of cultural evolution. Thus, I conclude that proponents of the natural goodness approach must either embrace non-naturalistic vitalism or troubling moral revisionism.

Keywords

Evolutionary theory Gene-culture coevolution Ethics Metaethics Teleology Normativity Natural goodness Neo-Aristotelianism Function 

References

  1. Andreou, C. (2006). Getting on in a varied world. Social Theory and Practice, 32(1), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armour-Garb, B. P., & Beall, J. C. (2005). Deflationary truth, volume 1. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Blackburn, S. (1984). Spreading the word. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boorse, C. (1976). Wright on functions. The Philosophical Review, 85(1), 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, R. N. (1988). How to be a moral realist. In G. Sayre-McCord (Ed.), Essays in moral realism (pp. 181–228). New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, R. N. (1991). Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61(1), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141–185). Cambridge: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., & Richerson, P. J. (2003). The evolution of altrustic punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences., 100(6), 3531–3535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd, Robert, & Richerson, Peter J. (1992). Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(3), 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1988). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Casebeer, W. D. (2003). Natural ethical facts: Evolution, connectionism, and moral cognition. Cambridge: Mit Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, G. A. (2001). Karl Marx’s theory of history: A defense (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Coyne, J. A. (2000). Of vice and men: The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology. New Republic, 147, 27–34.Google Scholar
  14. Cummins, R. C. (1975). Functional analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(20), 741–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daniels, N. (1979). Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(5), 256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson, D. (1987). Knowing one’s own mind. In Proceedings and addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Volume 60, pp. 441–458.Google Scholar
  17. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Revised Edition. Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. Dennett, D. (1989). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dreier, J. (1996). Expressivist embeddings and minimalist truth. Philosophical Studies, 83(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dreier, J. (2004). Meta-ethics and the problem of creeping minimalism. Philosophical Perspectives, 18(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dretske, F. (1988). Explaining behavior: Reason in a world of causes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Driver, J. (2001). Uneasy virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ereshefsky, M. (1992). Eliminative pluralism. Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 671–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ereshefsky, M. (2010). What’s wrong with the new biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 674–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feldman, M. W., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1986). On the theory of evolution under genetic and cultural transmission with application to the lactose absorption problem. In M. Feldman (Ed.), Mathematical Evolutionary Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fitzpatrick, W. J. (2000). Teleology and the norms of nature. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Foot, P. (1972). Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives. The Philosophical Review, 81(3), 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Foot, P. (2001). Natural goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Geach, P. T. (1977). The virtues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gibbard, A. (1992). Wise choices, apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Godfrey-Smith, P. (1994). A modern history theory of functions. Nous, 28(3), 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gowans, C. W. (2008). Virtue and nature. Social Philosophy and Policy, 25(1), 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Griesemer, J. R. (2000). Reproduction and the reduction of genetics. In P. J. Beurton, R. Falk, & H. Rheinberger (Eds.), The concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives (pp. 240–285). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hare, R. M. (1979). What is wrong with slavery. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8(2), 103–121.Google Scholar
  35. Hasker-Wright, J. (2009). What is natural about Foot’s ethical naturalism? Ratio, 22(3), 308–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Henrich, J. S. J., & Heine, A. Norenzayan. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2003). The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12(3), 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hull, D. L. (1976). Are species really individuals? Systematic Biology, 25(2), 174–191.Google Scholar
  39. Hull, D. L. (1978). A matter of individuality. Philosophy of science, 45(3), 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hull, D. L. (1986). On human nature. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, 2, 3–13.Google Scholar
  41. Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kagan, S. (1991). The limits of morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly, R. C. (1985). The Nuer conquest: The structure and development of an expansionist system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kitcher, P. (1984). Species. Philosophy of Science, 51(2), 308–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kitcher, P. (1999). Essence and perfection. Ethics, 110(1), 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kitcher, P., & Vickers, L. (2003). Pop socio-biology reborn: The evolutionary psychology of rape and violence. In P. Kitcher (Ed.), In Mendel’s mirror (pp. 333–355). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. (2011). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. LaPorte, J. (1997). Essential membership. Philosophy of Science, 64(1), 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Levins, R. (1968). Evolution in a changing environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. (1985). The dialectical biologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lewtonin, R. (1991). Biology as ideology. New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  52. Lewens, T. (2012). Human nature: The very idea. Philosophy & Technology, 25(4), 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lloyd, E. A. (2001). Science gone astray: Evolution and rape. Michigan Law Review, 99(6), 1536–1559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lott, M. (2012). Have elephant seals refuted aristotle? Nature, function, and moral goodness. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 9(3), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mackie, J. L. (1990). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. New york: Penguin.Google Scholar
  56. Machery, E. (2008). A plea for human nature. Philosophical Psychology, 21(3), 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Machery, E. (2012). Reconceptualizing human nature: Response to lewens. Philosophy & Technology, 25(4), 475–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Millgram, E. (2009). Life and action. Analysis Reviews, 69(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
  59. Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, hought, and other biological categories: New foundation for realism. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Mulgan, T. (2001). The demands of consequentialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  61. Neander, K. (1991). Functions as selected effects: The conceptual analyst’s defense. Philosophy of Science, 58, 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Odenbaugh, (2010). On the Very Idea of an Ecosystem. In Hazlett A. Palgrave (Ed.), New waves in metaphysics. New York: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  63. Post, J. F. (2006). Naturalism, reduction and normativity: Pressing from below. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ramsey, G. (2013). Human nature in a post-essentialist world. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 983–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2001). The evolution of subjective commitment to groups: A tribal instincts hypothesis. Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment, 3, 186–220.Google Scholar
  66. Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2008). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sandler, R. L. (2007). Character and environment: A virtue-oriented approach to environmental ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Schroeder, T. (2004). Three Faces of Desire. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3), 229–243.Google Scholar
  70. Smith, M. (1994). The moral problem. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  71. Sober, E. (1980). Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 47(3), 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sober, E. (1993). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  73. Stephens, C. (2001). When is it selectively advantageous to have true beliefs? Sandwiching the better safe than sorry argument. Philosophical Studies, 105(2), 161–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stich, S. (1990). The fragmentation of reason. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  75. Thompson, M. (1995). The representation of life. In P. Foot & R. Hursthouse (Eds.), Virtues and reasons: Philippa Foot and moral philosophy (pp. 247–296). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  76. Thompson, M. (2008). Life and action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. (2001). A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Williams, B. (1983). Evolution, ethics, and the representation problem. In D. S. Bendall (Ed.), Evolution from molecules to men (pp. 555–566). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Wright, L. (1973). Functions. The Philosophical Review, 82(2), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wright, L. (1976). Teleological explanations: An etiological analysis of goals and functions. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLewis & Clark CollegePortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations