Skip to main content

Bogardus' New Paper on Evolutionary Debunking Arguments

The paper aims to make trouble for naturalists, arguing that, given the facts of evolution, they should abandon moral realism, accept a rationalism in tension with naturalism, or give up naturalism. In this way, it brings out an apparent epistemological tension between atheism and moral realism.


Angra Mainyu said…
Hi, EA,

A couple of cents:

1. Bogardus's claim about the percentage of anti-realists doesn't take into consideration that different philosophers construe the expression "moral realism" very differently. For example, Geoff Sayre-McCord's definition in the SEP's entry on moral realism is compatible with the view that, say, if species#2 evolved very differently (e.g., from something like orcas) in the way proposed in Bogardo's argument, and as a result they had beliefs very different from our moral beliefs, they wouldn't have moral beliefs and moral language at all, but #2-moral beliefs and language, and the fact that their #2-moral beliefs would not be a close match for our moral beliefs would not pose a threat to our moral knowledge.

Bogardus - and most or all defenders of evolutionary debunking arguments - seems to implicitly reject that a view of that sort would be a form of moral realism. But if he doesn't count that sort of view (and some others) as realism, he seems to have no good info on the percentage of moral realists among philosophers.

2. More importantly, his claim that an evolved human faculty for evaluating the world in moral terms presupposes moral realism is false if a view like the one I sketched in 1. above is not classified as realism, since we may well have a human faculty for evaluating the world in moral terms, while #2-orcas have a faculty to evaluate the world in #2-moral terms, and so on.

3. One can make a parallel color-symmetry debunking argument:

(13') Our color faculty was naturally selected to produce adaptive color beliefs, and not naturally selected to produce true color beliefs.
(14') Therefore, it is not true that: had our species evolved elsewhere, elsewhen and we later formed color beliefs using the same method we actually
used, our beliefs would be true.
(15') It is not clear whether we are in a better epistemic position than our many nearby counterfactual selves who disagree with us on color matters.
(16') Therefore, our color beliefs do not count as knowledge.

Actually, more evidence can be given against the particular sort of color realism that parallels what Bogardus seems to demand of moral realism, considering that we already know that many other animals widely "disagree" with us on color matters (I don't think that's disagreement at all, but that's what the Bogardus seems to imply in the moral case, and I'm making a parallel in the color case).

Now, there is no equivalent of what Bogardus calls "Rationalism" in the case of color - e.g., it's apparent to all that reason won't tell us what color an apple is.
So, it seems to me that Bogardus's argumentation, translated to the color case, would lead to the conclusion that either there is Divine Color Revelation (and so, it seems bees and eagles unfortunately have false color beliefs, but we're not in trouble because God revealed to us the true colors of the world), or else color realism is false, and apparently, that entails our color beliefs do not count as knowledge. As I see it, that's a problem for Bogardus's argumentation, not for color knowledge (and Divine Color Revelation is false).
Aragorn said…
Maybe I'm just way too under-informed, but I really don't see how one's nearby counterfactual selves will have different moral principles given a different set of evolutionary history. A moral realist will certainly disagree. Seems to me, the argument merely presupposes this or at least supports it inadequately.

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…