Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–16 | Cite as

Evolutionary debunking arguments and the explanatory scope of natural selection

  • Joeri WitteveenEmail author
Article

Abstract

An influential species of evolutionary debunking argument (EDA) against moral realism holds that since cumulative natural selection (likely) shaped the contents of our moral beliefs, those beliefs do not count as knowledge. Critics have taken issue with a range of empirical, epistemic, and metaphysical assumptions that EDAs are said to rely on, which has engendered a complex debate over whether and to what extent the debunking challenge succeeds. However, recently it has been argued that we can reject EDAs without having to enter this thicket of issues. EDAs supposedly fail at the outset, by trading on a glaring misunderstanding about the scope of natural selection explanations. I argue that this objection to EDAs fails, and itself rests on a mistaken view of natural selection explanation and its relation to justification.

Keywords

Evolutionary debunking arguments Natural selection explanation Negative view Origin essentialism Moral realism Evolution of morality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Jonathan Birch, Daan Evers, Jeroen Hopster, Wouter Kalf and Michael Klenk for their helpful comments on a draft version.

Funding

Funding was provided by Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Grant No. 275-20-060).

References

  1. Birch, J. (2012). The negative view of natural selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 569–573.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogardus, T. (2016). Only all naturalists should worry about only one evolutionary debunking argument. Ethics, 126(3), 636–661.  https://doi.org/10.1086/684711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke-Doane, J. (2012). Morality and mathematics: The evolutionary challenge. Ethics, 122(2), 313–340.  https://doi.org/10.1086/663231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Copp, D. (2008). Darwinian skepticism about moral realism. Philosophical Issues, 18(1), 186–206.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2008.00144.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cuneo, T., & Shafer-Landau, R. (2014). The moral fixed points: New directions for moral nonnaturalism. Philosophical Studies, 171(3), 399–443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0277-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deem, M. J. (2016). Dehorning the Darwinian dilemma for normative realism. Biology and Philosophy, 31(5), 727–746.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9529-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enoch, D. (2010). The epistemological challenge to metanormative realism: How best to understand it, and how to cope with it. Philosophical Studies, 148(3), 413–438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9333-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FitzPatrick, W. J. (2014). Debunking evolutionary debunking of ethical realism. Philosophical Studies, 172(4), 883–904.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0295-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanson, L. (2017). The real problem with evolutionary debunking arguments. The Philosophical Quarterly, 67(268), 508–533.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqw075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Helgeson, C. (2015). There is no asymmetry of identity assumptions in the debate over selection and individuals. Philosophy of Science, 82(1), 21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1086/679114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huemer, M. (2015). A liberal realist answer to debunking skeptics: The empirical case for realism. Philosophical Studies, 173(7), 1983–2010.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0588-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kahane, G. (2011). Evolutionary debunking arguments. Noûs, 45(1), 103–125.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00770.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levy, A., & Levy, Y. (2018). Evolutionary debunking arguments meet evolutionary science. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.  https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12554. (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewens, T. (2001). Sex and selection: A reply to Matthen. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52(3), 589–598.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/52.3.589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matthen, M. (1999). Discussion. Evolution, Wisconsin style: Selection and the explanation of individual traits. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50(1), 143–150.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/50.1.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mogensen, A. L. (2016). Do evolutionary debunking arguments rest on a mistake about evolutionary explanations? Philosophical Studies, 173(7), 1799–1817.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0579-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neander, K. (1988). What does natural selection explain? Correction to Sober. Philosophy of Science, 55(3), 422–426.  https://doi.org/10.1086/289446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neander, K. (1995a). Explaining complex adaptations: A reply to Sober’s ‘Reply to Neander’. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46(4), 583–587.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/46.4.583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neander, K. (1995b). Pruning the tree of life. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/46.1.59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pust, J. (2001). Natural selection explanation and origin essentialism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 31(2), 201–220.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2001.10717565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pust, J. (2004). Natural selection and the traits of individual organisms. Biology and Philosophy, 19(5), 765–779.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-005-0888-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ruse, M. (1986). Taking Darwin seriously: A naturalistic approach to philosophy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Sartorelli, J. (2015). Biological process, essential origin, and identity. Philosophical Studies, 173(6), 1603–1619.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0570-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Evolutionary debunking, moral realism and moral knowledge. Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy., 7, i.Google Scholar
  26. Skarsaune, K. O. (2009). Darwin and moral realism: Survival of the iffiest. Philosophical Studies, 152(2), 229–243.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9473-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sterelny, K., & Fraser, B. (2016). Evolution and moral realism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axv060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian Dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127(1), 109–166.  https://doi.org/10.2307/4321684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Street, S. (2008). Reply to Copp: Naturalism, normativity, and the varieties of realism worth worrying about. Philosophical Issues, 18(1), 207–228.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2008.00145.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Strevens, M. (2008). Depth: An account of scientific explanation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Vavova, K. (2015). Evolutionary debunking of moral realism. Philosophy Compass, 10(2), 104–116.  https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White, R. (2010). You just believe that because…. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 573–615.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2010.00204.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wielenberg, E. J. (2010). On the evolutionary debunking of morality. Ethics, 120(3), 441–464.  https://doi.org/10.1086/652292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wielenberg, E. J. (2016). Ethics and evolutionary theory. Analysis, 76(4), 502–515.  https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anw061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Witteveen, J. (2019). Natural selection and contrastive explanation. Philosophy of Science, 86, 412–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science Education, Section for History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations