Abstract
Machery and Mallon [The moral psychology handbook (pp. 3–47). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010] argue that existing evidence does not support the claim that moral cognition, understood as a specific form of normative cognition, is a product of evolution. Instead, they suggest that the evidence only supports the claim that a general capacity for normative cognition evolved. They argue that if this is the case, then the prospects for evolutionary debunking arguments (EDAs) of morality are bleak. A debunking argument which relied on the fact that normative cognition in general evolved seems like it would debunk all areas of normative belief, including the epistemic norms upon which the argument relies. For the sake of argument, we accept their claim that specifically moral cognition did not evolve. However, we reject their contention that this critically undermines EDAs of morality. A number of strategies are available to solve what we call the “containment problem” of how to effectively debunk morality without thereby debunking normative cognition tout court. Furthermore, the debunking argument need not rely even on the claim that normative cognition in general evolved. So long as at least some aspects of moral cognition have evolved, this may be sufficient to support an EDA against many of our moral beliefs. Thus, even if Machery and Mallon are right that specifically moral cognition did not evolve, research in evolutionary psychology may have radical implications for moral philosophy.
Keywords
- Containment problem
- Evolution
- Evolutionary debunking argument
- Evolution of morality
- Metaethics
- Metaethical variability
- Moral realism
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
For example, Behrends (2013), Brosnan (2011), Carruthers and James (2008), Clarke-Doane (2012), Cline (2014), Copp (2008), De Cruz and De Smedt (2012), De Lazari-Radek and Singer (2012), Enoch (2010, 2011), FitzPatrick (2013, 2014a, 2014b), Fraser (2014), Griffiths and Wilkins (2010), Jong and Visala (2014), Joyce (2006, 2013, 2014), Kahane (2011), Mason (2010), Peters (2012), Schafer (2010), Shafer-Landau (2012), Skarsaune (2011), Street (2006, 2008), Talbott (2014), Toner (2011), Vavova (2014), Visala (2011), Wielenberg (2010), and Wilkins and Griffiths (2012).
- 2.
Throughout the paper, we equivocate between the influence of evolution and the influence of natural selection. Without offering a full-fledged defense of adaptationism, we assume that the influence of evolutionary mechanisms other than natural selection (e.g., genetic drift) can only enhance EDAs since none of these mechanisms seem suited to producing truth-tracking capacities.
- 3.
- 4.
Prinz (2009) only considers these the steps necessary to establish a particular form of moral nativism he calls “immodest moral nativism” (p. 168). Thus, Prinz acknowledges that there are other means by which one could establish some form of moral nativism.
- 5.
Turiel (1983) also disputes whether the developmental evidence supports nativism.
- 6.
By mind-independent, we don’t mean to say that moral facts cannot mention mental states. For example, causing unnecessary pain might be morally wrong, but it is not wrong in the realist sense if its truth depends on how people regard that prohibition. For example, whether evolution occurred does not depend on how people regard the theory. On the other hand, whether something is money depends crucially on whether people regard that thing as a medium of exchange.
- 7.
An illustrative analogy is the pseudo-scientific use of scientific concepts. When new age healers talk about quantum uncertainty or the vibration of strings, the healers intend to support their theories by illustrating their coherence with or basis in established science. Closer inspection reveals (of course) that the notions employed by healers bear little resemblance to their scientific counterparts. Once one has substituted the genuine notions for the fakes, the theories of pseudo-scientists generally lose whatever apparent plausibility they once enjoyed. Of course, this is an extreme example, but similar problems may exist in philosophy. Ladyman et al. (2007) levy a similar critique against the dubious use of physical concepts by metaphysicians (pp. 25–27).
- 8.
In general, when we speak about moral judgments, we intend to include what philosophers call “moral intuitions.” In ordinary language, “intuition” often refers to a gut decision or feeling. While moral intuitions may frequently take this form, philosophers typically see intuitions as including judgments that involve more explicit reasoning or consideration.
- 9.
Kant (in)famously argues that one should not lie to a murderer to protect the innocent. This is an unsettling consequence of his deontological ethics, but one he appears willing to accept. Others have not been as willing to follow Kant in accepting this implication, with some insisting that Kant’s own principles do not require that one always tell the truth (Korsgaard, 1986) and others accepting that it does (Constant, 1776) and concluding that this is a deeply problematic implication for Kant’s ethical system.
- 10.
Obviously more needs to be said here, but a lengthy digression into the evolution of perception seems inappropriate.
- 11.
It’s important to note that this debunking account would only undermine those property-related normative judgments that depend (directly or indirectly) on the relevance of possession or occupation to ownership (e.g., approving of adverse possession as a means of acquiring property).
- 12.
Exactly what murder means would have to be fleshed out. It would be crucial to see which forms of killing are permitted and under what circumstances.
References
Andre, J. B., & Baumard, N. (2011). Social opportunities and the evolution of fairness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 289, 128–135.
Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J. R. (1982). Social rules governing object conflicts in toddlers and preschoolers. In Peer relationships and social skills in childhood (pp. 99–111). New York: Springer.
Baumard, N., André, J. B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(01), 59–78.
Baumard, N., Mascaro, O., & Chevallier, C. (2012). Preschoolers are able to take merit into account when distributing goods. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 492.
Baumard, N., & Sheskin, M. (2015). Partner choice and the evolution of a contractualist morality. In J. Decety & T. Wheatley (Eds.), The moral brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beebe, J. (2014). How different kinds of disagreement impact folk metaethical judgments. In J. C. Wright & H. Sarkissian (Eds.), Advances in experimental moral psychology: Affect, character, and commitment (pp. 167–187) London: Continuum.
Behrends, J. (2013). Meta-normative realism, evolution, and our reasons to survive. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94(4), 486–502.
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brosnan, K. (2011). Do the evolutionary origins of our moral beliefs undermine moral knowledge? Biology & Philosophy, 26(1), 51–64.
Carter, D. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1982). Sex roles as social conventions: The development of children’s conceptions of sex-role stereotypes. Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 812.
Carruthers, P., & James, S. M. (2008). Evolution and the possibility of moral realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77(1), 237–244.
Clarke-Doane, J. (2012). Morality and mathematics: The evolutionary challenge. Ethics, 122(2), 313–340.
Cline, B. (2014). Nativism and the evolutionary debunking of morality. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1–23.
Cohon. R. (2010). Hume’s moral philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2011 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/.
Constant, B. (1776). Des réactions politiques. Retrieved from http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/constant_benjamin/des_reactions_politiques/des_reactions.html.
Copp, D. (2008). Darwinian skepticism about moral realism. Philosophical Issues, 18(1), 186–206.
Cushman, F., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Finding faults: How moral dilemmas illuminate cognitive structure. Social Neuroscience, 7(3), 269–279.
Cushman, F., Young, L., & Greene, J. D. (2010). Our multi-system moral psychology: Towards a consensus view. The Oxford handbook of moral psychology, 47–71.
Darwin, C. (1887). Letter to William Graham. In F. Darwin (Ed.), The life and letters of Charles Darwin including an autobiographical note (Vol. 1, pp. 315–317). London: John Murray.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
De Cruz, H., & De Smedt, J. (2012). Evolved cognitive biases and the epistemic status of scientific beliefs. Philosophical Studies, 157(3), 411–429.
De Lazari-Radek, K., & Singer, P. (2012). The objectivity of ethics and the unity of practical reason. Ethics, 123(1), 9–31.
Dwyer, S. (1999). Moral competence. In K. Murasugi & R. Stainton (Eds.), Philosophy and Linguistics (pp. 169–190). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Dwyer, S. (2006). How good is the linguistic analogy? In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Culture and cognition (pp. 237–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dwyer, S. (2007) How not to argue that morality isn’t innate: Comment on Prinz. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 894–914.
Enoch, D. (2011). Taking morality seriously: A defense of robust realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enoch, D. (2010). The epistemological challenge to meta-normative realism: How best to understand it, and how to cope with it. Philosophical Studies, 148(3), 413–438.
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2013). Debunking evolutionary debunking of ethical realism. Philosophical Studies, 1–22.
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2014a). Evolutionary theory and morality: Why the science doesn’t settle the philosophical questions. Philosophic Exchange, 44(1), 2.
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2014b). Morality and evolutionary biology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/morality-biology/.
Foot, P. (2001). Natural goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fraser, B. J. (2014). Evolutionary debunking arguments and the reliability of moral cognition. Philosophical Studies, 168(2), 457–473.
Gabennesch, H. (1990). The perception of social conventionality by children and adults. Child Development, 61(6), 2047–2059.
Gert, B. (2005). Morality: Its nature and justification. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gill, M. B. (2009). Indeterminacy and variability in meta-ethics. Philosophical Studies, 145(2), 215–234.
Gintis, H. (2007). The evolution of private property. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 64(1), 1–16.
Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2008). The psychology of meta-ethics: Exploring objectivism. Cognition, 106(3), 1339–1366.
Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2012). Why are some moral beliefs perceived to be more objective than others? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 250–256.
Greene, J. D. (2007). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. Moral Psychology: Historical and Contemporary Readings, 359–372.
Griffiths, P., & Wilkins, J. (2010). When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?. In P. Sloan (ed.), Darwin in the 21st century: Nature, humanity, and god. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 613.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.
Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, method, and point. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 47–66.
Hauser, M. D. (2006). Moral minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong. New York: Ecco.
Huebner, B., Lee, J. J., & Hauser, M. D. (2010). The moral-conventional distinction in mature moral competence. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(1), 1–26.
Hume, D. (2007). A treatise of human nature: A critical edition. In D. F. Norton & M. J. Norton (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jong, J., & Visala, A. (2014). Evolutionary debunking arguments against theism, reconsidered. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 1–16.
Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Joyce, R. (2013). Irrealism and the genealogy of morals. Ratio, 26(4), 351–372.
Joyce, R. (2014). Evolution, truth-tracking, and moral skepticism. Problems of Goodness: New Essays on Metaethics.
Kahane, G. (2011). Evolutionary debunking arguments. Noûs, 45(1), 103–125.
Kahane, G. (2014). Evolution and impartiality. Ethics, 124(2), 327.
Kelly, D., Stich, S., Haley, K. J., Eng, S. J., & Fessler, D. M. (2007). Harm, affect, and the moral/conventional distinction. Mind & Language, 22(2), 117–131.
Korsgaard, C. M. (1986). The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 325–349.
Ladyman, J. A. C., Presnell, S. M., Short, A. J. & Groisman, B. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Machery, E. (2012). Delineating the moral domain. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 7(1), 6.
Machery, E. (2013). Morality did not evolve. Boston Colloquium for Philosophy of Science. Lecture conducted from Boston University, Boston, MA.
Machery, E., & Mallon, R. (2010). Evolution of morality. In J. M. Doris et al. (Eds.), The moral psychology handbook (pp. 3–47). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mason, K. (2010). Debunking arguments and the genealogy of religion and morality. Philosophy Compass, 5(9), 770–778.
Maynard Smith, J., & Parker, G. A. (1976). The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour, 24(1), 159–175.
Mikhail, J. (2000). Rawls’ linguistic analogy: A study of the ‘generative grammar’ model of moral theory described by John Rawls in ‘A Theory of Justice.’ (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(2).
Moll, J., Zahn, R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2005). The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(10), 799–809.
Neurath, O. (1983). In R. S. Cohen & M. Neurath (Eds.), Philosophical papers. 1913–1946. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Nichols, S. (2004a). Sentimental rules: On the natural foundations of moral judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nichols, S. (2004b). After objectivity: An empirical study of moral judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 17(1), 3–26.
Nisan, M. (1987). Moral norms and social conventions: A cross-cultural comparison. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 719.
Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nucci, L., & Nucci, M. (1982). Children’s social interactions in the context of moral and conventional transgressions. Child Development, 53, 403–412.
Nucci, L., & Turiel, E. (1978). Social interactions and the development of social concepts in preschool children. Child Development, 49, 400–407.
Nucci, L., Turiel, E., & Encarnacion-Gawrych, G. (1983). Children’s social interactions and social concepts analyses of morality and convention in the Virgin Islands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14(4), 469–487.
Peters, U. (2012). Evolution, moral justification, and moral realism. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia Analitica-Junior, 3(1), 8–18.
Plantinga, A. (2009). The evolutionary argument against naturalism: An initial statement of the argument. Philosophy After Darwin: Classic and Contemporary Readings, 301–309.
Prinz, J. (2009). Against moral nativism. In D. Murphy & M. Bishop (Eds.), Stich and his critics (pp. 167–189). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Putnam, H. (1975). Mathematics, matter and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quine, W. V. (1948). On what there is. The Review of Metaphysics, 2(1), 21–38.
Rosas, A. (2012). Mistakes to avoid in attacking the moral/conventional distinction. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 7(1), 8.
Russell, S. J. (1997). Rationality and intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 57–77.
Sarkissian, H., Park, J., Tien, D., Wright, J. C., & Knobe, J. (2011). Folk moral relativism. Mind & Language, 26(4), 482–505.
Sayre-McCord, G. (2009). Moral realism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2011 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/.
Schafer, K. (2010). Evolution and normative scepticism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88(3), 471–488.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Evolutionary debunking, moral realism and moral knowledge.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Wheatley, T. (2012). The disunity of morality and why it matters to philosophy. The Monist, 95(3), 355–377.
Skarsaune, K. O. (2011). Darwin and moral realism: Survival of the iffiest. Philosophical Studies, 152(2), 229–243.
Smetana, J., & Braeges, J. L. (1990). The development of toddlers’ moral and conventional judgements. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 329–346.
Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127(1), 109–166.
Street, S. (2008). Reply to Copp: Naturalism, normativity, and the varieties of realism worth worrying about. Philosophical Issues, 18(1), 207–228.
Talbott, W. J. (2014). How could a “blind” evolutionary process have made human moral beliefs sensitive to strongly universal, objective moral standards? Biology & Philosophy, 1–18.
Toner, C. (2011). Evolution, naturalism, and the worthwhile: A critique of Richard Joyce’s evolutionary debunking of morality. Metaphilosophy, 42(4), 520–546.
Turiel, E. (1979). Distinct conceptual and developmental domains: Social convention and morality. In H. Howe & C. Keasey (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1977: Social cognitive development. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Vavova, K. (2014). Debunking evolutionary debunking. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 9, 76–101.
Visala, A. (2011). Naturalism, theism, and the cognitive study of religion: Religion explained? Farnham, UK/Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Weigel, R. M. (1984). The application of evolutionary models to the study of decisions made by children during object possession conflicts. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5(4), 229–238.
Wielenberg, E. J. (2010). On the evolutionary debunking of morality. Ethics, 120(3), 441–464.
Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Richard courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13(1), 1–14.
Wilkins, J. S., & Griffiths, P. E. (2012). Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains. A New Science of Religion, 23, 133.
Wilson, J. Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York: The Free Press.
Wright, J. C., Grandjean, P. T., & McWhite, C. B. (2013). The meta-ethical grounding of our moral beliefs: Evidence for meta-ethical pluralism. Philosophical Psychology, 26(3), 336–361.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Millhouse, T., Bush, L.S., Moss, D. (2016). The Containment Problem and the Evolutionary Debunking of Morality. In: Shackelford, T., Hansen, R. (eds) The Evolution of Morality. Evolutionary Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19670-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19671-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)