Abstract

Evolutionary psychology speaks to a common intuition that the biology of the human animal will elucidate human beastliness. In this article I argue that, regardless of whether that intuition is correct, evolutionary psychology fails as an explanation of human action. It fails because, in attempting to replace our everyday moral vocabulary with a mechanical one, it loses sight of the constitutive role of norms in human conduct. In thus disregarding normativity, it sacrifices the ability to identify actions. Evolutionary psychologists respond with either reductionism or pluralism. Reductionism shows itself utterly incapable of providing an adequate account of human actions; pluralism only works by abandoning fundamental features of evolutionary psychology. This ought to convince us that evolutionary psychology. in any of its current guises, has little of interest to teach social science.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.