TY - JOUR
T1 - Evolutionary Foundations for a Theory of Moral Progress?
AU - Sterelny, Kim
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 by Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2019.
PY - 2019/11/1
Y1 - 2019/11/1
N2 - Buchanan and Powell develop a concept of moral progress, and build a middle-range theory of how moral progress comes about. They argue on the basis of their view of the evolutionary origins of normative thought that further moral progress towards more inclusive moral and political systems is possible. In doing so they rebut a conservative reading of the evolution of normative thought: a reading that regards the hope for inclusive moral systems as utopian. Buchanan and Powell argue that this 'evoconservative' argument overlooks overwhelming evidence of the adaptive plasticity of normative thought. I agree with their rejection of that evoconservative position, but give an alternative account of the evolutionary foundations of normative cognition and its plasticity. But I also argue that there is a gap in their defence of their view of moral progress: it begs the question against exclusive, relational conceptions of the naturalistic foundations of normative obligations and rights. Their account is less fully naturalistic than they seem to suppose, for it lacks a developed account of the natural facts which make normative claims true, and it is not clear that there is an account to be given that would vindicate their inclusive liberal intuitions about the norms we should have.
AB - Buchanan and Powell develop a concept of moral progress, and build a middle-range theory of how moral progress comes about. They argue on the basis of their view of the evolutionary origins of normative thought that further moral progress towards more inclusive moral and political systems is possible. In doing so they rebut a conservative reading of the evolution of normative thought: a reading that regards the hope for inclusive moral systems as utopian. Buchanan and Powell argue that this 'evoconservative' argument overlooks overwhelming evidence of the adaptive plasticity of normative thought. I agree with their rejection of that evoconservative position, but give an alternative account of the evolutionary foundations of normative cognition and its plasticity. But I also argue that there is a gap in their defence of their view of moral progress: it begs the question against exclusive, relational conceptions of the naturalistic foundations of normative obligations and rights. Their account is less fully naturalistic than they seem to suppose, for it lacks a developed account of the natural facts which make normative claims true, and it is not clear that there is an account to be given that would vindicate their inclusive liberal intuitions about the norms we should have.
KW - adaptive plasticity and norms
KW - evolution of norm psychology
KW - evolution of norms
KW - implicit and explicit norms
KW - intergroup conflict and norms
KW - neo-contractarianism
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85077323413&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1515/auk-2019-0013
DO - 10.1515/auk-2019-0013
M3 - Review article
SN - 0171-5860
VL - 41
SP - 205
EP - 216
JO - Analyse und Kritik
JF - Analyse und Kritik
IS - 2
ER -