ISSN:
1572-8404
Keywords:
Darwin
;
error theory
;
ethics
;
evolution
;
evolutionary ethics
;
Mackie
;
naturalistic fallacy
;
Ruse
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Biology
,
Philosophy
Notes:
Abstract Suppose that the human tendency to think of certain actions andomissions as morally required – a notion that surely lies at the heart of moral discourse – is a trait that has been naturallyselected for. Many have thought that from this premise we canjustify or vindicate moral concepts. I argue that this is mistaken, and defend Michael Ruse's view that the moreplausible implication is an error theory – the idea thatmorality is an illusion foisted upon us by evolution. Thenaturalistic fallacy is a red herring in this debate,since there is really nothing that counts as a ‘fallacy’ at all. If morality is an illusion, it appears to followthat we should, upon discovering this, abolish moraldiscourse on pain of irrationality. I argue that thisconclusion is too hasty, and that we may be able usefullyto employ a moral discourse, warts and all, withoutbelieving in it.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006742813396
