Genealogical arguments which aim to undermine some aspect of ethics by referring to its supposed evolutionary origin have become both more common and more philosophically substantive in recent years. In this thesis, I present what I take to be the strongest evolutionary debunking argument aimed against the meta-ethical view of moral realism. Specifically, I present Sharon Street’s Darwinian Dilemma. I then consider the strongest responses given in defense of moral realism by Derek Parfit and Russ Shafer-Landau. I give reason to reject most of Parfit’s and Shafer-Landau’s responses and then suggest that due to a lack of justification for our moral beliefs (if moral realism is true) we ought to have a lower level of credence in them.

<p>Heightened awareness of the evolutionary, socio-cultural, and psychological origins of our moral judgments pushes many of us in the direction of moral skepticism, in the direction of doubting the objective truth of our moral judgments. But should awareness of the origins of our moral judgments shake our confidence in them? Are there good moral debunking challenges or debunking arguments from premises concerning the accessible origins of our moral judgments to skeptical conclusions regarding them? In vigorous pursuit of these questions, this dissertation sifts three promising moral debunking challenges to moral realism, namely Richard Joyce's (2001) evolutionary debunking argument from epistemic insensitivity, Sharon Street's (2006) "Darwinian Dilemma," and David Enoch's (2010) "Epistemological Challenge." It is argued that each challenge faces cogent objections that not only demonstrate the inadequacy of the best debunking challenges available but also instructively guide us to the development of new and more forceful debunking challenges to moral realism. This dissertation develops two new and forceful debunking challenges, both of which target the epistemic reliability and justification of our moral judgments on realist views of the moral facts. The first new debunking challenge starts from the premise that the best explanation of our moral judgments does not appeal to their truth and invokes a new species of epistemic insensitivity to secure the conclusion that our moral belief-forming processes are epistemically unreliable. The second new debunking challenge reasons that the best explanation of the fact that moral realists have no good explanation of the reliability of our moral belief-forming processes is that there is no such reliability.</p> / Dissertation

This PhD thesis provides an extended evaluation of evolutionary debunking arguments in meta-ethics. Such arguments attempt to show that evolutionary theory, together with a commitment to robust moral objectivity, lead to moral scepticism: the implausible view that we lack moral knowledge or that our moral beliefs are never justified (e.g. Joyce 2006, Street 2005, Kahane 2011). To establish that, these arguments rely on certain epistemic principles. But most of the epistemic principles appealed to in the literature on evolutionary debunking arguments are imprecise, confused or simply implausible. My PhD aims to rectify that. Informed by debates in cutting-edge contemporary epistemology, Chapter 1 distinguishes three general, independently motivated principles that, combined with evolution, seem to render knowledge of robustly objective moral facts problematic. These epistemic principles state that (i.) our getting facts often right in a given domain requires explanation - and if we cannot provide one, our beliefs about that domain are unjustified; (ii.) higher-order evidence of error undermines justification; and (iii.) for our beliefs to be justified, our having them must be best explained by the facts they are about. Chapters 2-4 develop and critically assess evolutionary debunking arguments based on those principles, showing that only the one inspired by (iii.) succeeds. Chapter 2 investigates the argument that evolution makes explaining why we get moral facts often right impossible. I argue that Justin Clarke-Doane's recent response (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) works, yet neglects an issue about epistemic luck that spells trouble for robust moral objectivity. Chapter 3 discusses the argument that evolution provides higher-order evidence of error regarding belief in robustly objective moral facts. I show that such an argument falls prey to Katia Vavova's (2014) self-defeat objection, even if evolutionary debunkers tweak their background view on the epistemic significance of higher-order evidence. Chapter 4 develops the argument that evolution, rather than robustly objective moral facts, best explains why we hold our moral beliefs. I offer a systematic, comprehensive defence of that argument against Andreas Mogensen's (2015) charge of explanatory levels confusion, Terrence Cuneo's (2007) companion in guilt strategy, and David Enoch's (2012, 2016) appeal to deliberative indispensability. Chapter 5 brings everything together. It investigates whether robust moral objectivity survives the worry about epistemic luck raised in Chapter 2 and the explanatory challenge developed in Chapter 4. Making progress, however, requires a better idea of how we form true, justified beliefs about and acquire knowledge of robustly objective moral facts. Since it offers the most popular and best-developed epistemology of robustly objective morality, my inquiry in Chapter 5 focuses on contemporary moral intuitionism: the view that moral intuitions can be the source of basic moral knowledge. I argue that its success is mixed. While moral intuitionism has the conceptual tools to tackle the problem of epistemic luck from Chapter 2, it cannot insulate knowledge of robustly objective moral facts against the sceptical worry raised by the evolutionary debunking argument developed in Chapter 4. Thus, evolutionary theory, together with a commitment to robust moral objectivity, does lead to a form of unacceptable moral scepticism.

No description available.

Although there is no consensus among biologists as to whether human behaviour can beexplained by evolution, there are a number of theories and models in different fields ofresearch that aim to do just that. Philosophy is no exception. In metaethics, evolutionarybiology is used to formulate an evolutionary debunking explanation. This skepticalepistemological tool is used to show that if evolution has, in some way, affected humanmorality, then we cannot have true justified belief in moral matters.An ongoing debate about the evolutionary debunking explanation is about howmuch empirical detail the evolutionary debunking explanation can demand. With this paper, Iwant to examine how philosophers writing about the evolutionary debunking explanation useevolutionary biology, as well as how much evolutionary biology is required for theevolutionary debunking explanation to be valid. I will argue that it is possible to identifythree difficulties in using evolutionary biology to formulate a philosophical tool.

In this thesis I discuss one way in which evolutionary theory has been brought to bear on the evaluation of competing meta-normative views in epistemology. More specifically, I investigate whether normative realism in epistemology (epistemic realism) is compatible with the view that we are justified in holding many of the epistemic beliefs we hold, on the assumption that those beliefs can be explained in evolutionary terms. In Part I I discuss normativity in epistemology and meta-epistemology. I begin by drawing attention to the fact that there are very different ways of understanding which concepts in epistemology are normative and what their normativity consists in. I focus on the concept of an epistemic reason to illustrate this point. I then discuss, in some detail, how different interpretations of epistemic-normativity will affect the form which normative-realist views in epistemology can take. I conclude by drawing a taxonomy of epistemic-realist views which is mindful of the different interpretations of epistemic normativity which I distinguished. In Part II I turn to discuss the topic of Darwinian arguments against normative-realist views in epistemology. I begin by considering the form which Darwinian arguments have taken in recent metaethical literature. I argue that Darwinian arguments of a kind which is meant to raise a distinctively epistemological challenge for normative-realist views – I call those 'Darwinian-epistemological' arguments – represent a more interesting object of philosophical investigation than Darwinian arguments of a different 'metaphysical' kind. I then formulate a Darwinian-epistemological argument which targets normative-realist views in epistemology (DEA), explain how it works, and spend some time discussing its key premises. In Part III I engage with the Darwinian-epistemological challenge against realism about epistemic normativity that Sharon Street presents in her paper 'Evolution and the Normativity of Epistemic Reasons' (2009). I argue that Street’s epistemological challenge is best viewed as an instance of a Darwinian-epistemological argument of the kind I formulated (DEA). I then go on to reply to Street’s argument on behalf of the epistemic realist. I conclude that arguments with the form of DEA do not represent a serious threat for normative realist views in epistemology.

Situé à l’intersection de grands mouvements en philosophie morale, comme la renaissance du réalisme non naturaliste et l’affirmation d’un scepticisme épistémologique moral, ce mémoire se propose d’interroger la fiabilité des intuitions morales à la lumière des récentes découvertes effectuées en neuroscience, psychologie morale et théorie de l’évolution. Ne pouvant recouvrir l’intégralité des conceptions de l’intuition et de la justification morales, ce mémoire se penchera prioritairement sur l’intuitionnisme éthique prôné par Michael Huemer. Solution alléguée au scepticisme épistémologique moral, l’intuitionnisme de Huemer garantit une justification prima facie aux énoncés moraux, une propriété conférée par le principe du conservatisme phénoménal. Profitant aux intuitions morales de tous niveaux de généralité, cette justification prima facie peut toutefois être défaite, comme le supposent les arguments étiologiques proximaux et distaux. Au cours de ce mémoire, je défendrai l’idée qu’une majorité d’intuitions morales, telles que conçues par Huemer, sont effectivement défaites par la voie étiologique. D’une part, je tenterai de montrer que l’hypothèse du double système, bénéficiant désormais d’un vaste soutien empirique, n’est pas compatible avec la conception huemérienne des intuitions morales. En l’occurrence, la « trolleyologie » de Joshua Greene, le « Modèle intuitionniste social » de Jonathan Haidt ainsi que les procédés heuristiques seront mobilisés à des fins argumentaires. D’autre part, je tenterai de montrer que la critique généalogique évolutionnaire de Street jette le doute sur une grande partie des intuitions morales, principalement les intuitions morales substantives (non formelles). Comme le soutient Street, l’incapacité du réaliste à rendre compte de la relation entre les vérités évaluatives postulées et les pressions évolutives constitue une raison convaincante d’abandonner le réalisme moral. Ayant présenté deux types d’arguments étiologiques, l’un psychologique et l’autre évolutionnaire, je conclus que seules les intuitions morales formelles et métadiscursives sont réellement susceptibles d’éviter la charge du sceptique épistémologique. / Located at the intersection of a great many philosophical movements, such as the rebirth of non-naturalist realism and the affirmation of moral epistemological skepticism, this master’s thesis interrogates the reliability of moral intuitions in light of recent advancements in neuroscience, moral psychology and evolutionary theory. While there are various ways to conceive of moral intuition and justification, this thesis will prioritize a version of ethical intuitionism defended by Michael Huemer. Put forward as a solution to moral epistemological skepticism, Huemer’s intuitionism guarantees prima facie justification to moral propositions, a property conferred by the principle of phenomenal conservatism. While intuitions of every level of generality can benefit from such prima facie justification, this very type of justification is susceptible to defeat, as suggested by proximal and distal debunking arguments. Throughout this master’s thesis, I will defend the claim that a majority of moral intuitions, as conceived by Huemer, are effectively defeated by means of debunking arguments. On the one hand, I will try to demonstrate that the dual-process hypothesis, which is widely supported, is not compatible with Huemer’s conception of moral intuitions. In order to substantiate this view, I will draw from Joshua Greene’s “trolleyology”, Jonathan Haidt’s “Social Intuitionist Model” and recent work on moral heuristics. On the other hand, I will attempt to show that Street’s evolutionary debunking argument throws significant doubt on a large portion of moral intuitions, mostly the ones which are substantial (non-formal). As Street purports, the realist’s incapacity to explain the relation between posited evaluative truths and evolutionary pressures constitutes a strong reason to reject moral realism. Having presented two types of debunking arguments, one psychological and the other evolutionary, I conclude that only formal and metadiscursive moral intuitions are really susceptible to avoid the charge of the epistemological sceptic.