Evolutionary Ethics and Biologically Supportable Morality :: Philosophy Essays

Evolutionary ethics and Biologically Supportable MoralityABSTRACT Consider the paradox of selflessness the existence of truly altruistic behaviors is difficult to reconcile with evolutionary surmisal if natural selection operates only on individuals, since in that case individuals should be un allow foring to sacrifice their own fitness for the sake of others. Evolutionists have much turned to the hypothesis of root selection to relieve the existence of altruism but group selection cannot explain the evolution of clean-livingity, since morality is a one-group phenomenon and group selection is a m whatsoever-group phenomenon. After spelling out dependable what the problem is, this paper discusses several ways of solving it. IntroductionThe confines evolutionary ethics denotes an approach to naturalistic moral philosophy which seeks to explain how moral traits and behavior evolved. Sophisticated versions of evolutionary ethics do not argue that the moral judgments of each and every individual can be predicted given only the tenets of evolutionary theory. Rather the aim is usually to translate that humankind beings possess moral traits because such traits confer a selective usefulness. The motivation for this kind of view lies in a broader naturalism if moral philosophy is to be founded on a naturalistic understanding of human beings and their place in the world, and if evolutionary theory gives us the best (kind of) trace of the natural history of human beings, then moral philosophy will need to be brought in line with (some version of) evolutionary theory. determine moral theory so that it is possible to explain the selective advantage of moral traits and behavior is thus the vocation of evolutionary ethics.One of the intriguing problems confronting evolutionary ethics is to solve the apparent paradox of altruism. According to evolutionary theory, natural selection entails that in general only the fittest individuals in any given biological populat ion will survive and reproduce. An organisms evolutionary telos, or goal, seems to be to promote its own fitness in order to survive long enough to reproduce. In situations where an organism confronts a choice between enhancing its own fitness and enhancing the fitness of others, it would seem to check that the organism will (or ought to, or should be expected to) choose to kick upstairs its own fitness. (1)The paradox arises because empirical facts seem to contradict this prediction of evolutionary theory. In a wide range of cases, and among organisms of differing levels of sentience and sapience, individual organisms often behave in ways that promote the fitness of some group (especially but not always a kin group) at the disbursal of their own individual fitness.