Ayala, Francisco (2008) What the Biological Sciences Can and Cannot Contribute to Ethics. [Preprint]
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png)
|
PDF
AyalaPhilSciArchive.pdf Download (103kB) |
Abstract
The question whether ethical behavior is biologically determined may refer either to the capacity for ethics (i.e., the proclivity to judge human actions as either right or wrong), or to the moral norms accepted by human beings for guiding their actions. I herein propose: (1) that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature; and (2) that moral norms are products of cultural evolution, not of biological evolution. Humans exhibit ethical behavior by nature because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one’s own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution not because it is adaptive in itself, but as a necessary consequence of man’s eminent intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection. That is, morally evolved as an exaptation, not as an adaptation. Since Darwin’s time there have been evolutionists proposing that the norms of morality are derived from biological evolution. Sociobiologists represent the most recent and most subtle version of that proposal. The sociobiologists' argument is that human ethical norms are sociocultural correlates of behaviors fostered by biological evolution. I argue that such proposals are misguided and do not escape the naturalistic fallacy. The isomorphism between the behaviors promoted by natural selection and those sanctioned by moral norms exist only with respect to the consequences of the behaviors; the underlying causations are completely disparate.
| Export/Citation: | EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL |
| Social Networking: |
| Item Type: | Preprint | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creators: |
|
||||||
| Additional Information: | This article is paired with Michael Ruse, “The Biological Sciences Can Act as a Ground for Ethics”. Both are forthcoming in Francisco Ayala and Robert Arp, eds., Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). Two additional chapters to this volume, by Richard Burian and Carmen Sapienza, are also posted in this Archive. Ruse: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004078/ Ayala: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004079/ Sapienza: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004080/ Burian: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004081/ | ||||||
| Keywords: | ethics, cultural evolution, biological evolution, biological determination, moral norms, capacity for ethics, human nature, adaptation, exaptation, sociobiology, naturalistic fallacy, | ||||||
| Subjects: | Specific Sciences > Biology > Evolutionary Theory General Issues > Ethical Issues Specific Sciences > Biology |
||||||
| Depositing User: | Richard Burian | ||||||
| Date Deposited: | 20 Jun 2008 | ||||||
| Last Modified: | 07 Oct 2010 15:16 | ||||||
| Item ID: | 4079 | ||||||
| Subjects: | Specific Sciences > Biology > Evolutionary Theory General Issues > Ethical Issues Specific Sciences > Biology |
||||||
| Date: | June 2008 | ||||||
| URI: | https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/4079 |
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}