Do evolutionary debunking arguments rest on a mistake about evolutionary explanations?

Abstract

Many moral philosophers accept the Debunking Thesis, according to which facts about natural selection provide debunking explanations for certain of our moral beliefs. I argue that philosophers who accept the Debunking Thesis beg important questions in the philosophy of biology. They assume that past selection can explain why you or I hold certain of the moral beliefs we do. A position advanced by many prominent philosophers of biology implies this assumption is false. According to the Negative View, natural selection cannot explain the traits of individuals. Hence, facts about past selection cannot provide debunking explanations for any of our moral beliefs. The aim of this paper is to explore the conflict between the Debunking Thesis and the Negative View.

The Evolutionary Debunking of Quasi-Realism

“…A recent trend in the literature is to connect the epistemic premise to the notion of higher-order evidence-that is, evidence regarding our evidence. For example, the lack of explanatory connection (or awareness of it) can be construed as higher-order evidence that the evidence on which we base our D-beliefs is unreliable or undercut (Bogardus 2016, Mogensen 2016.…”

Natural Selection's Explanatory Scope

“…While the debate over the negative and positive views of selection does not receive as much attention as it once did, it raises challenging philosophical problems for which no one has devised clearly satisfactory solutions. The debate is also relevant to topics that reach beyond philosophy of biology, such as the import of evolutionary debunking arguments in metaethics (Mogensen, 2016; Witteveen, 2021).…”

The limits of rational belief revision: A dilemma for the Darwinian debunker

“…Hanson (2017) andMogensen (2016), in contrast, engage directly with the debunker on the empirical claim. 5 This seems to be Kahane's reading in his (2011) p. 106.…”

“…44Hanson (2017) and Mogensen (2016), in contrast, engage directly with the debunker on the empirical claim.…”