Subject: 
        RE: [evol-psych] Evolutionary psychology, dualism and ethics
   Date: 
        Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:21:20 +1000
   From: 
        "Hilary Fisher" 
     To: 
        




My understanding of the naturalistic fallacy is that it is generally invoked
to warn of the danger of deriving "ought" statements from "is" statements:
Just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Some of the current disagreement on this issue seems to arise from the
converse of this.

Evolutionary psychology, as a science, investigates what "is". The confusion
seems to arise because what humans consider to be an "ought" is also an
"is", one which is particularly relevant to evolutionary psychology. In
other words, our normative feelings (rational or emotional) are something
worthy of an attempt at explaining either as the product of biological or
cultural evolution.

However, we should be careful not to confuse an investigation or analysis of
normative values with the imposing of  our own normative values on the
results of investigation or analysis.

I agree with John Cartwright that:

"If "ought" statements cannot be deduced, inferred or abstracted in
some way from "is" statements, then where are ought statements
obtained from? Pure logic and reason cannot by themselves, it
seems to me, lead us to normative statements. They need
something ( axioms, value statements, biological facts etc) to work
upon."

For this reason, there is an artificiality in the distinction, as our
"ought" statements, are inevitability derived an "is" of some description be
it an axiom, value statement or biological fact.

However, in studying these "is"es it does well to remember the naturalistic
fallacy to ensure that our own normative feelings do not add another layer
to the mixture (as far as we are capable of doing this) ... or that when
they do we make it clear that this is the case.

Creeping out of long-time lurkdom,

Hilary Fisher

PhD Student and Associate Lecturer
TC Beirne School of Law
University of Queensland
Australia