[A functional explanation of normative prescriptive-evaluative judgments and the concept of "evolutionary ethics"].
Neodarwinian ethology, today above all represented by sociobiology, is conceived of by responsible exponents as a descriptive and explanatory theory that cannot include any normative declarations. Still other, indeed notable, authors belonging to the discipline in question, either underhand or frankly employ prescriptive or evaluative judgments, or they claim (what is not an insight of natural science) that it is impossible to provide a rational foundation for prescriptive or evaluative judgments. (Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson even assert the latter without relinquishing the former.) Several functional explanations of normative validity claims advanced by Michael Ruse, Edward O. Wilson, Donald T. Campbell, Florian von Schilcher and Neil Tennant are designed to show that prescriptive or evaluative judgments cannot be justified. The reasonableness of this move is, however, dubious, because it implies strategies of raising oneself into a privileged status or of rendering the position of oneself immune from criticism by shifting it among the objects of the theory. Then Wilson's concept of 'evolutionary ethics' is thoroughly--and critically--analyzed. The suspicion that Wilson's fallacies in the transition from biological facts to moral norms are of exemplary nature is finally examined on the basis of tenets advanced by Herbert Spencer, Wolfgang Wickler, and Hans Mohr.
Dorschel
A
A
Fachbereich 7 (Philosophie) der Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
D001675:Bioethics; D005075:Biological Evolution; D005010:Ethology / Q000266:history*; D049673:History, 20th Century; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D009014:Morals; D010684:Philosophy / Q000266:history; D012919:Social Behavior
Uber die funktionale Erklärung des normativen Geltungsanspruchs und das Konzept einer 'evolutionären Ethik'.