Subject:
[evol-psych] Beyond the naturalistic fallacy
Date:
Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:09:17 -0000
From:
"John Stewart"
To:
[email protected]
The Naturalistic Fallacy (NF) is widely (but wrongly) accepted as
ruling out the use of evolutionary facts to found human values and
ethics.
The NF notes that it is impossible to derive any value or ethic from
a set of facts alone. To derive a value, a set of facts must include
at least one value, and to derive that value requires at least one
other value, and so on, ad infinitum.
On this basis, the NF does not only rule out evolutionary ethics that
are based solely on facts. It also rules out all other approaches to
human values that are not based on at least one value that is taken
as given (i.e. that is groundless and without ultimate justification).
But the NF does not rule out a set of values that is based on at
least one value that is taken as given. It is a consequence of the
NF that all existing sets of human values must be of this type,
whether or not the holders of those values realize this. So
evolutionary values are not ruled out by the NF if they contain at
least one value that cannot be ultimately justified by facts. The NF
only rules out sets of evolutionary values that are based solely on
evolutionary facts.
But what of a human who rejects evolutionary values on the basis that
they cannot be derived by facts alone? Such an individual might
argue that he or she is not prepared to accept evolutionary values if
that means accepting a value that is given and without ultimate
justification. If the individual applies the same approach to any
other set of values, he or she will reject them all as well. Like any
set of values, they must be based on at least one `given'
value.
Such an individual would be paralyzed, without values or goals to
guide action. I have never heard of an individual who has taken the
NF seriously enough to take it to its logical conclusion in this
way. To do so would be a form of mental illness, quickly ending in
death. But this would not concern such an individual. He or she would
not value life. While individuals who adopt such a position
consistently would be temporary, individuals who do so inconsistently
are more common. Many individuals use the NF in this way to reject
the possibility of evolutionary values, and then blithely live their
life according to other values that would clearly fail the test they
applied to evolutionary values.
So humans (like all other organisms) cannot live or function without
values that the organism takes as given and that are not derivable
solely from facts. Reason is very useful for finding means to
satisfy our values, but cannot establish our ultimate values. As a
result evolution has ensured that we have an abundance of `given'
values. These existing `given' values can be combined with
evolutionary facts to derive systems of evolutionary values that do
not fall foul of the NF. The NF does not rule out the derivation
of `oughts' from `oughts'.
Because humans hold a wide variety of `given' values, it is
possible to construct many sets of evolutionary ethics that are
each founded on at least one `given' value that is currently
held by
some humans. But if a set of evolutionary values are to achieve
widespread acceptance amongst humans they will have to be founded
on `given' values that are capable (at least eventually) of
being widely accepted by humans.
Evolutionary psychology is in a unique position to contribute to the
development of such a system of evolutionary values, even while it
remains limited to a Darwinian evolutionary psychology. In my view
however, the main basis for a viable evolutionary ethic will not be
the requirements of evolutionary success 50,000 years ago when humans
lived in small tribes. Instead it will be based on the requirements
of future evolutionary success. But the implementation by humans of
such an evolutionary ethic would require the development of a
psychological capacity to transcend their biological and social past.
Kind regards,
John Stewart
http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/