Abstract
Perhaps the most familiar understanding of “naturalism” derives from Quine, understanding it as a continuity of empirical theories of the world as described through the scientific method. So, it might be surprising that one of the most important naturalistic moral realists, Philippa Foot, rejects standard evolutionary biology in her justly lauded Natural Goodness. One of her main reasons for this is the true claim that humans can flourish (eudaimonia) without reproducing, which she claims cannot be squared with evolutionary theory and biology more generally. The present argument concludes that Foot was wrong to reject evolutionary theory as the empirical foundation of naturalized eudaimonist moral realism. This is based on contemporary discussion of biological function and evolutionary fitness, from which a definition of “eudaimonia” is constructed. This gives eudaimonist moral realism an empirically respectable foundation.
Highlights
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
That, moral theory and evolutionary biology are not consistent. (We return below to the claim about non-reproducing organisms having “a fitness of zero”.). Is this really the case or is there a construal of human flourishing, of eudaimonia, which is both consistent with evolutionary biology and the choices of childlessness or celibacy?4 The thesis of the present essay is to defend the idea that there need be no tension between evolutionary biology and naturalistic moral realism: there is a way to understand morality and eudaimonia from an evolutionary point of view which does not necessitate choosing to have children or even engaging in sexual activity
In pursuit of this thesis, the structure of what follows is that we must first grasp the nature of biological function, and after this, we will be in a position to see how functions are related to an evolutionary understanding of fitness
Summary
(We return below to the claim about non-reproducing organisms having “a fitness of zero”.) Is this really the case or is there a construal of human flourishing, of eudaimonia, which is both consistent with evolutionary biology and the choices of childlessness or celibacy?4 The thesis of the present essay is to defend the idea that there need be no tension between evolutionary biology and naturalistic moral realism: there is a way to understand morality and eudaimonia from an evolutionary point of view which does not necessitate choosing to have children or even engaging in sexual activity. In pursuit of this thesis, the structure of what follows is that we must first grasp the nature of biological function, and after this, we will be in a position to see how functions are related to an evolutionary understanding of fitness Once these concepts are laid out, they can be used to construct a definition of “eudaimonia”, giving naturalistic moral realism an empirically respectable foundation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
