Who's Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
Oliver Curry
Evolutionary Psychology · 2006
doi:10.1177/147470490600400120 (opens in a new tab)
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
David Hume argued that values are the projections of natural human desires, and that moral values are the projections of desires that aim at the common good of society. Recent developments in game theory, evolutionary biology, animal behaviour and neuroscience explain why humans have such desires, and hence provide support for a Humean approach to moral psychology and moral philosophy. However, few philosophers have been willing to pursue this naturalistic approach to ethics for fear that it commits something called ‘the naturalistic fallacy’. This paper reviews several versions of the fallacy, and demonstrates that none of them present an obstacle to this updated, evolutionary version of Humean ethical naturalism.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
References68
40 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.
All 68 referencesReads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.