PhilSci Archive

What the Biological Sciences Can and Cannot Contribute to Ethics

Ayala, Francisco (2008) What the Biological Sciences Can and Cannot Contribute to Ethics. [Preprint]

[img]
Preview
PDF
Download (101Kb) | Preview

    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
    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 11:16
    Item ID: 4079
    URI: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/4079

    Actions (login required)

    View Item

    Document Downloads