The possibility of avoiding naturalistic fallacy in ethics from the viewpoint of Michael Ruse

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
maryam AsgarpourAli 1
Hossein Sheykhrezaee 2
1 philosophy of science/ Faculty of Theology and Philosophy/ Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch/ Tehran/Iran
2 National Research Institute for Science Policy/tehran/Iran
10.30470/phm.2019.36303
Abstract
The naturalistic approaches to ethics try to find some solution to problems of moral philosophy with an emphasis on finding of empirical science. One of the most famous naturalistic approaches to ethics is evolutionary approach. Evolutionary explanations of morality have always been accused of committing naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy has two Humean and Moorian versions. Hume's reading, also known as deductive version of the naturalist fallacy, suggests that the inference of values from facts is a kind of fallacy. Moore's version of naturalistic fallacy, says that defining moral properties based on immoral properties, and in particular natural properties, is impossible. In this article, after introducing Ruse's evolutionary ethics, his reasons for not having been committed to naturalistic fallacies are brought. Then we answer this question if he really avoided the fallacies. Our answer to this question is yes. But, along with critics like Rottscheafer and Martinsen, we will show that the cost of avoiding these fallacies has been to discarding the objectivity of ethics.Would Ruse without endorsing an illusionary and subjective account of morality avoid the naturalistic fallacy? We will demonstrate that such a reading can be offered by giving a greater role to culture. Thus, the purpose of the article is to oppose the Ruse's illusionary readings of morality and to defend an objectivist reading. In our opinion, elements of this reading can also be found in the work of the Ruse himself and will be offered at the end of the article.
Keywords
"moral naturalism"
"naturalistic fallacy"
"social darwinism"
"evolutionary ethics"
-  آبلسون، رازیل و نیلسن، کی. (1392). "تاریخ فلسفه اخلاق". در دانشنامه‌ی فلسفه‌ی اخلاق. ویراسته پل ادوارد و دونالد ام بورچرت. ترجمه‌ی ا. رحمتی. تهران: سوفیا.
-   دباغ، سروش. (1388). درس گفتارهایی در فلسفه‌ی اخلاق. تهران: موسسه فرهنگی صراط، چاپ دوم.
-   روس، مایکل. (1392). "اخلاق تکاملی". در دانشنامه‌ی فلسفه‌ی اخلاق. ویراسته پل ادوارد و دونالد ام بورچرت. ترجمه‌ی ا. رحمتی. تهران: سوفیا.
-   میرباباپور، سید مصطفی. (1396)."مفهوم‌شناسی طبیعت‌گرایی روش‌شناختی به‌مثابه یک ابر پارادایم برای علم مدرن". تأملات فلسفی، 7 (19): 213-242.
-   مور، جورج ادوارد. (1395). مبانی اخلاق. ترجمه‌ی غ. توکلی و ع. عسگری یزدی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
-  نیلسن،کی. (1392)."مسائل فلسفه‌ی اخلاق".در دانشنامه‌ی فلسفه‌ی اخلاق. ویراسته پل ادوارد و دونالد ام بورچرت. ترجمه‌ی ا. رحمتی. تهران: انتشارات سوفیا.
-  ویرینن، پیکا. (1392)."واقع‌گرایی اخلاقی". در دانشنامه‌ی فلسفه‌ی اخلاق. ویراسته پل ادوارد و دونالد ام بورچرت. ترجمه‌ی ا. رحمتی. تهران: انتشارات سوفیا.
-   Hudson, William Donald. (1983).Modern Moral Philosophy.London: Macmillan.
 
-        Hume, David. (2009). A Treatise of Human Nature. Auckland:The floating Press.
 
-        Lenman, Jimmy. (Spring 2014). "Moral Naturalism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 
 
-  Moore, Edward. (1988). Principa Ethica.New York:Promethues Book.
 
-  Offer, John. (2010). Herbert Spencer and Social Theory, London: University of Ulster.
 
- Pittenger, Mark. (1994). American Socialist and Evolutionary Thought 1870-1920, Chicago: University of Wisconsin Press.
 
-  Priest, Stephen.(2007). The British Empiricists. London: Routledge.
 
- Rottscheafer, william.& Martinsen, David. (1990). “Really Taking Darwin Seriously: An Alternative to Micheal Ruses Darwinian Metaethics”. Biology and Philosophy. Newyork: Springer.5(2): 149-173.
 
 -  Ruse, Michael. (1986). Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy. UK: Oxford.
 
- Ruse, Michael.& wilson, Edward. (1986). "Moral Philosophy as Applied Science". Philosophy. London: Cambridge University:61 (236), 173-192.
 
-  Ruse, Michael. (1995). Evolutionary Naturalism. London: Routledge.
 
- Ruse, Michael. (2003). "Evolutionary Naturalism", In: The Nature and Limits of Human Understanding. London:T&T Clark, pp. 109-162.
 
- Ruse, Michael. (2006). "Is Darwinian Methaethics Possible?" In: Evolutionary Ethics and Contemporary biology, Etied by Boniolo, G.& Anna, G. London: Cambridge University Press.
 
- Ruse, Michael. (2010). "The Biological Sciences Can Act as A Ground for Ethics", In: The Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology. Edited by F.J. Arp & F. Ayala. New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell.
 
- Spencer, Herbert. (1874).The Study of Sociolog. London:Williams and Norgate.
 
-Spencer, Herbert. (1981). Progress: Its Laws and Cause , London: Fitzgerald.6(17), 234-283.
 
-Spencer, Herbert. (1896). The Principles of Ethics. NewYork: D. Apletton and Company.
Philosophical Meditations
Volume 9, Issue 22 - Serial Number 22
September 2019
Pages 245-272