The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 2 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism and Moral Knowledge
Open accessAbstract
This paper reconstructs what I take to be the central evolutionary debunking argument that underlies recent critiques of moral realism. The argument claims that given the extent of evolutionary influence on our moral faculties, and assuming the truth of moral realism, it would be a massive coincidence were our moral faculties reliable ones. Given this coincidence, any presumptive warrant enjoyed by our moral beliefs is defeated. So if moral realism is true, then we can have no warranted moral beliefs, and hence no moral knowledge. In response, I first develop what is perhaps the most natural reply on behalf of realism—namely, that many of our highly presumptively warranted moral beliefs are immune to evolutionary influence and so can be used to assess and eventually resuscitate the epistemic merits of those that have been subject to such influence. I then identify five distinct ways in which the charge of massive coincidence has been understood and defended. I argue that each interpretation is subject to serious worries. If I am right, these putative defeaters are themselves subject to defeat. Thus many of our moral beliefs continue to be highly warranted, even if moral realism is true.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Shafer-Landau defends moral realism against evolutionary debunking arguments by reconstructing the “Darwinian Argument” and arguing that its central premises—especially D1, D3, and D5—are inadequately supported. He concludes that moral realism remains compatible with moral knowledge and warranted moral belief.
Key findings
- The evolutionary debunkers’ master argument, reconstructed as D1–D11, aims to show that if moral realism is true and evolutionary forces have thoroughly shaped our moral faculties in doxastically discriminating ways, then our moral beliefs are unwarranted and we have no moral knowledge.
- Shafer-Landau argues that the crucial premise D5—that evolutionary forces have thoroughly shaped our moral faculties in doxastically discriminating ways—is “far from well confirmed,” and that D3—that there is no independent confirmation of the reliability of our moral faculties—is also uncertain.
- He examines five interpretations of the alleged “massive coincidence” (odds, insensitivity, confirmed doxastic effects, empiricist, causal) and finds none gives adequate reason to accept D1.
- He proposes that realists can use the “Natural Reply,” relying on highly presumptively warranted moral beliefs that are apparently maladaptive and thus not obviously products of evolutionary influence, to assess and rehabilitate other moral beliefs.
Methods
- Conceptual and philosophical analysis; no empirical data, sample, or statistical analysis are reported.
- The paper reconstructs evolutionary debunking arguments into premise-conclusion form, especially the Darwinian Argument (D1–D11), the Uncertainty Argument, the Probability Argument, the Insensitivity Argument, the Doxastic Effect Argument, the Empiricist Argument, and the Causal Argument.
- It evaluates each premise and considers realist replies, including the Natural Reply, semantic competence with moral concepts, parity with perceptual and a priori knowledge, and formal strategies of faculty vindication.
Limitations
- The paper states that D5 is an uncertain empirical hypothesis and that evolutionary accounts are in many ways “just-so stories” based on thin evidence about prehistoric events.
- It states that the status of D3 is uncertain and depends on whether realists can develop a successful formal strategy for vindicating the reliability of our moral faculties; it says “the jury is out” on how feasible such a strategy is.
- It acknowledges that it has not argued for the existence of a priori moral truths and that its proposed replies do not provide a complete account of nonnaturalistic moral knowledge.
- Evident from the text: the paper offers no empirical testing or new data; its conclusions rest on conceptual argument and on the current state of philosophical debate.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
132 Own interpretation · 24 No basis given · 2 Sources not found
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But there do seem to be some that appear anything but adaptive.Among many possibilities: those that counsel impartial benevolence, compassion for vulnerable strangers, kindness to small animals, concern for distant peoples and future generations, and speaking truth to power.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, most of our moral beliefs do not have necessarily true propositions as their contents”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No matter one's metaethic, it is true that our moral beliefs represent only a tiny fraction of those that are psychologically possible.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this point, we do not.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But in order to entirely fend off the Natural Reply, debunkers must provide an indirect explanation of the origins of every moral belief that is both highly presumptively warranted and apparently maladaptive.Debunkers are very far from having done this.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In either case, there is a parity between realism and constructivism that supports the tu quoque response.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem with Huemer's line of argument is that even if he is right in his choice of influence-free beliefs, such beliefs do not seem, either by themselves or in conjunction with nonmoral claims, sufficient to warrant any specific, substantive moral beliefs over others.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and we can develop the Natural Reply by using those beliefs as secure points from which to rebuild our stock of credible moral commitments.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The contamination of our moral thinking would be local rather than global.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“D5 is far from well confirmed.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 42
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet Southern antebellum abolitionists were able to transcend the influences of their time and place”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so too were advocates of female suffrage in societies suffused with ideologies of male dominance.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But I take it that the second reply is sufficient to show that even error theorists who are not skeptics about perceptual knowledge should opt for a different understanding of the massive coincidence that allegedly undermines realist hopes for moral knowledge.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If selective pressures operated like a belief pill -effectively shortcircuiting an agent's powers of deliberation, and just implanting a belief without allowing an agent's rational insight or assessment of evidence to ground her belief -then we would have real cause for worry on this score.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That argument is meant to serve as a defeater of the presumptive warrant that even debunkers grant to many moral beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But debunkers have said nothing on behalf of this special status for evolutionary forces, nothing to show that evolutionary forces possess an immunity to correction that is unique among all possibly distorting doxastic influences.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we are required to suspend judgment about which moral views are true and which false, then from that agnostic perspective, it would be a miracle were the moral beliefs we actually hold correct.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the model required by the belief-pill analogy, a belief is the product of such influences just when it is wholly caused by them.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But selective pressures, operating as indirect doxastic influences, still allow us to reflect critically on the nature of morality, assess evidence for moral claims, fully deliberate about the truth of such claims and base our beliefs on the grounds we find most compelling.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After all, the burden is on the evolutionary debunker to substantiate every one of the premises of the Darwinian Argument.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Debunkers have thus far not been clear enough about the precise nature of the alleged coincidence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 5. Against D1: Diagnosing Massive Coincidence
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessments of coincidence must be rendered from some epistemic standpoint or other.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“D2 is plausible.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 2. The Darwinian Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, the best explanation of why anyone would find U1 plausible is because she already finds D1 appealing.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 4. The Argument from Uncertainty
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowledge must be based, in the right ways, on adequate insight, evidence, reasons or experience.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key worry presented by Joyce's belief pill is that such a pill would undermine an appropriate basing relation needed to confer knowledge.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But by parity of reasoning, we should then be licensed to make the same assumption about our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“N1.If some of our highly presumptively warranted moral beliefs are not the product of evolutionary influence, and we can know which ones are thus immune, then we can utilize such beliefs to ascertain the plausibility of those that are the product of evolutionary pressures.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For almost every possible belief, we are unable to exclude the possibility that it is the product of evil demons or manipulative neuroscientists.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once we impart background assumptions about magnetism, however, we eliminate any appearance of coincidence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But absent a great deal of further empirical and philosophical work, this remains an unsubstantiated possibility that cannot rightly cast doubt on N2 or vindicate D5.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the original line of argument is sound, then this should lead us to conclude that we have no perceptual knowledge if perceptual truths are construed realistically.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Joyce's critique is sound only if two conditions are true: (1) to the extent that our moral beliefs are the product of evolutionary forces, such beliefs are formed in ways that are insensitive to whatever moral truth there may be; and (2) our inability to exclude the possibility of insensitive doxastic origins for a set of beliefs S mandates suspension of judgment regarding all beliefs within that”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I think that Joyce's argument really does rest on (2), as he is appropriately modest about the nature and extent of evolutionary influences on our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agents accidentally come to true beliefs when they fail to base their beliefs on adequate insight, evidence, experience or reasons.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if we were to grant condition (1), this general line of reasoning is deeply problematic, since the truth of (2) would lead to wholesale skepticism.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Skepticism about nearly everything is erroneous.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Debunkers are trying to identify something especially worrisome about moral knowledge, rather than developing an argument for global skepticism.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course we can resist this line of reasoning by assuming that our perceptual faculties are largely reliable.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The primary evidence for the influence of evolutionary pressures on our moral faculties is the fact that many of our paradigm moral beliefs are highly adaptive.6”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A priori knowledge is not miraculous -or if it is, then given our confidence in the existence of such knowledge, a charge of massive coincidence should no longer suffice to undermine prospects for knowledge.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the assumption of realism's truth, the warrant for our moral beliefs would have been defeated.It would therefore be illicit to rely on those beliefs in seeking to restore that warrant.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For substantive evaluative or moral claims, if they are able to do the needed work, must enjoy a degree of positive epistemic status that is immune to genealogical critiques.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we are convinced that those critiques are less powerful than their adherents have thought, then we can adopt an internal coherence strategy of faculty vindication and enlist substantive moral beliefs to validate the reliability of our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus until such time as we can mount a successful defense of a formal strategy for vindicating the reliability of our moral faculties, moral realists will have to focus directly on trying to undermine at least one premise of the Darwinian Argument.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After all, those forces have been fairly uniform across our species, yet there is plenty of variation among people in terms of their moral dispositions and beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But if we are unsure of the power of such critiques, then, as I have conceded, it seems illicit to rely on substantive moral beliefs to resuscitate our confidence in our moral faculties.In that case, internal coherence strategies are out.Independence strategies are out (given the autonomy of the moral).If formal strategies are also off the table, then it seems that all options for vindicating our”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: We must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Nonmoral beliefs cannot by themselves justify positive moral beliefs.
- Rests on an assumption: The moral domain is autonomous.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Central philosophical premises are not empirically confirmable.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But evolutionary debunkers have done nothing to challenge the existence of a priori truths generally.Nor have they targeted a priori moral truths in particular.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that the moral realist does not have to vindicate (1) in order to fend off evolutionary critiques.All the realist needs is to show that (2) is inadequately supported.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We don't seem to.D5 is an uncertain empirical hypothesis.The status of D3 is also uncertain, and depends on whether realists can succeed in developing a formal strategy for vindicating the reliability of our moral faculties.The best arguments for D1 -or at least, the best that I can think of and locate in the literature -also fall short of their intended aim.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This example is especially important, because on realist assumptions (which debunkers are granting in order to generate skeptical implications), fundamental moral principles are conditionals that express necessary truths.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many moral beliefs appear to be intrinsically plausible and are very widely endorsed across times and cultures, are embedded in a broad network of mutual doxastic support, survive extended reflection and possess a high degree of credibility as implied by plausible general theories of warrant.The initial positive epistemic status of such moral beliefs is extremely high.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Even if we suppose, for instance, that an evolutionary account of the origins of our moral faculties is the best one we have, it is still in many ways a just-so story, as previously noted.26”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can confirm that selective pressures have had the indirect effect of leading us to moral truth only if we (1) assume the truth of some substantive moral or evaluative claims, and then (2) reveal how it would be adaptive to hold beliefs with that content.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In that case, moral realists would have to reject C3.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if no single nonmoral source tells the entire explanatory tale, it may be that these combined sources, perhaps in conjunction with other nonmoral causes, entirely explain why we have the moral beliefs we do.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On this way of looking at things, C1 is either false or it begs a question against realists.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Economic, chemical, geological and biological facts cause things -or if, by virtue of their supervenient status, they are thereby deemed to be causally inert, then the Causal Argument would prove too much, by forcing us either to antirealism about every supervenient domain, or to skepticism about all of the claims in such domains.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What the debunker needs is to show is that selective pressures have actually, as a matter of fact, exercised such a thoroughgoing influence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If moral facts cause nothing, then, a fortiori, they do not cause our moral beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So long as we are deeply puzzled about the reliability of our moral faculties, we are unable to restore confidence in them by enlisting beliefs generated by the now-questionable faculties.Neither can we restore confidence by bringing nonmoral beliefs to bear.So, it seems, we cannot restore confidence at all.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: We must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Nonmoral beliefs cannot by themselves justify positive moral beliefs.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would also provide a compelling case against the third premise of the Darwinian Argument: D3: There is no independent confirmation of the reliability of our moral facultiestheir reliability can be confirmed only by showing that they have generated moral beliefs in which we have a high degree of warranted confidence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But when it comes to morality, this possibility is not yet confirmed.Nor can it ever be.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of moral causation, it seems that we must accept C1 -there would be some complete nonmoral causal explanation of our moral beliefs, even if genealogical debunkers have yet to specify the complete causal story.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Moral facts are causally inert (assumed for the sake of argument).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonnaturalists will have to take aim at either C1 or C3.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we grant such entitlement, then it seems the genealogical critic has lost the argument before it has even begun.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But a wholesale philosophical skepticism is implausible, and is in any event self-undermining for debunkers, since they can achieve their aims only by advancing philosophical arguments.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But so long as there are any, and we are unwilling to em-brace a wholesale skepticism in such domains, we have reason to resist the Doxastic Effect Argument.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, instances of a priori apprehension are themselves physical events.(Or, if they are not, then we have excellent reason to reject the causal closure of the physical, and so the completeness of physical explanations of our a priori beliefs.)”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if we have doubts about F's reliability, and if F ranges over an autonomous domain of inquiry, neither of these familiar strategies will work.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The moral domain is autonomous.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps the mental operations that generate nonmoral synthetic a priori knowledge are the very ones responsible for generating our a priori moral beliefs.Were that so, we would have good, albeit defeasible, reason to consider our moral faculties reliable, at least with regard to the a priori moral beliefs they generate.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, so long as there is any plausible form of an is-ought gap, empirical claims cannot imply normative truths.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: There is some plausible form of an is-ought gap (an inference barrier between empirical claims and normative truths).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, once realists are able to defeat genealogical defeaters, they are then in a position to advance positive arguments that, for all we now know, are sufficient to establish the reliability of our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That leaves us in a position to confidently rely on paradigmatic moral beliefs.Some of these can be utilized to forge the needed bridge between our moral faculties' evolutionary origins and their reliability.That would suffice to to establish (1).”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is no independent confirmation of the reliability of our moral faculties; their reliability can be confirmed only by showing that they have generated moral beliefs in which we have a high degree of warranted confidence.
“D3.There is no independent confirmation of the reliability of our moral facultiestheir reliability can be confirmed only by showing that they have generated moral beliefs in which we have a high degree of warranted confidence.”
“For now, though, we can proceed on the assumption of its truth”
The authors state this as an assumption.
If there is decisive reason to believe that our moral faculties are unreliable, and if those reasons are accessible to us, then this defeats any warrant we might have for our moral beliefs.
“D7.If there is decisive reason to believe that our moral faculties are unreliable, and if those reasons are accessible to us, then this defeats any warrant we might have for our moral beliefs.”
“Both D7 and D10 strike me as extremely plausible, and I will assume their truth in what follows.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Those reasons (in the form of D1-D6, and the considerations that support them) are accessible to us.
“D8.Those reasons (in the form of D1-D6, and the considerations that support them) are accessible to us.”
“So I will proceed on the assumption that D8 is correct.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
If our moral beliefs are unwarranted, then we have no moral knowledge.
“D10.If our moral beliefs are unwarranted, then we have no moral knowledge.”
“Both D7 and D10 strike me as extremely plausible, and I will assume their truth in what follows.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For all we know, there is a reasonable chance that evolutionary forces have thoroughly shaped our moral faculties in doxastically discriminating ways.
“U2.For all we know, there is a reasonable chance that evolutionary forces have thoroughly shaped our moral faculties in doxastically discriminating ways.”
“U2 is plausible, and I will assume its truth in what follows.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If, for all we know, there is a reasonable chance that our moral faculties are unreliable, then we must suspend judgment about all of our moral beliefs.
“U4.If, for all we know, there is a reasonable chance that our moral faculties are unreliable, then we must suspend judgment about all of our moral beliefs.”
“Though U4 is contestable, I will not argue against it here.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Nonmoral claims alone are incapable of certifying any substantive moral claims.
“on the plausible assumption that (trivial, aberrant cases aside 10 ) nonmoral claims alone are incapable of certifying any substantive moral claims.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Skepticism about nearly everything is erroneous.
“Assuming that such skepticism is erroneous”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Debunkers are trying to identify something especially worrisome about moral knowledge, rather than developing an argument for global skepticism.
“and also assuming that debunkers are trying to identify something especially worrisome about moral knowledge, rather than developing an argument for global skepticism”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Moral facts are causally inert (assumed for the sake of argument).
“let us now consider the worst-case scenario for the realist, and assume the causal inefficacy of moral facts.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is some plausible form of an is-ought gap (an inference barrier between empirical claims and normative truths).
“If we assume the existence of some such inference barrier, then unless one is willing to give up on the truth and credibility of all normative claims, we will have to accept that empirical inquiry alone will fail to reveal the truth and the epistemic status of our normative beliefs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The first premise of the Empiricist Argument (E1) is true.
“I think that the first premise of this argument is probably true.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A priori knowable propositions are metaphysically necessary truths, with only irrelevant exceptions.
“With a few possible exceptions that are irrelevant for present purposes, a priori knowable propositions are metaphysically necessary truths.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A priori truths, or the facts they represent, do not cause anything.
“Such truths, or the facts they represent, do not cause anything.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Instances of a priori apprehension are physical events.
“Further, instances of a priori apprehension are themselves physical events.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
We must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties.
“On the assumption that we must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties, any doubts about those faculties will be inherited by those beliefs.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Nonmoral beliefs cannot by themselves justify positive moral beliefs.
“And further assuming that nonmoral beliefs cannot by themselves justify positive moral beliefs, we are left adrift if we are unable to answer the debunking critiques.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The moral domain is autonomous.
“Independence strategies are out (given the autonomy of the moral).”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is an inference barrier from is to ought.
“Indeed, given the truth of any plausible inference barrier from is to ought, we will have to rely on substantive moral or evaluative claims in order to positively establish the existence of a correlation between selective pressures and the reliability of our moral faculties.”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The moral fixed points: new directions for moral nonnaturalism
Cuneo, T., & Shafer-Landau, R. (2014) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-013-0277-5 · Cited by 270
Self-citationDebunking evolutionary debunking of ethical realism
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2014) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-014-0295-y · Cited by 147
“1 For a very helpful reconstruction and critical examination of a variety of current evolutionary debunking arguments, see Shafer-Landau (2012).”
BackgroundOxford Studies in Metaethics 13
Sinclair, N. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823841.001.0001 · Cited by 120
Evolutionary Debunking of Moral Realism
Vavova, K. (2015) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12194 · Cited by 108
A liberal realist answer to debunking skeptics: the empirical case for realism
Huemer, M. (2015) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-015-0588-9 · Cited by 89
Does Evolutionary Psychology Show That Normativity Is Mind-Dependent?
Berker, S. (2014) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198717812.003.0010 · Cited by 74
Sauer, H. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781108529181 · Cited by 72
Against Minimalist Responses to Moral Debunking Arguments
Korman, D. Z., & Locke, D. (2020) · Oxford Studies in Metaethics Volume 15 · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198859512.003.0014 · Cited by 58
Bengson, J., Cuneo, T. D., & Shafer‐Landau, R. (2024) · doi:10.1093/9780198914594.001.0001 · Cited by 50
Self-citationKorman, D. Z. (2019) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12638 · Cited by 47
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108580885 · Cited by 46
Schäfer, K. (2015) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12252 · Cited by 44
Kumar, V., & May, J. (2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429452284-2 · Cited by 32
“In particular, we need a story about how natural selection (the ultimate cause) generated psychological mechanisms (proximate cause) that, along with environmental factors (e.g. cultural transmission), lead humans to form moral beliefs (compare Shafer-Landau 2012).”
BackgroundThe Real Problem with Evolutionary Debunking Arguments
Hanson, L. (2016) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.1093/pq/pqw075 · Cited by 31
“Shafer-Landau (2012), p, 2.23 "28 But there is another kind of truth-undermining EDA that doesn’t (or at least doesn’t explicitly) proceed via the claim that our moral beliefs are epistemically defective: Consider all the different moral beliefs these creatures could hold.”
BackgroundInfluentialMust realists be skeptics? An Aristotelian reply to a Darwinian Dilemma
Lott, M. (2017) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-017-0856-y · Cited by 28
“Once we appreciate just how basic the relevant evaluations are, it seems 9 See e.g. Shafer-Landau (2012, 33).”
BackgroundSepielli, A. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192856500.001.0001 · Cited by 28
Tersman, F. (2015) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12135 · Cited by 28
Evolutionary Hypotheses and Moral Skepticism
Isserow, J. (2018) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-018-9993-8 · Cited by 27
“…moral faculties and the moral truths if the debunking genealogy is correct.5 Even if our moral beliefs had come to line up in the right way with the moral truths, this would, given their evolutionary origins, be “… a matter of 3 For similar diagnoses, see Shafer-Landau (2012) and Dunaway (2017).”
BackgroundSplintering the gamer’s dilemma: moral intuitions, motivational assumptions, and action prototypes
Kjeldgaard‐Christiansen, J. (2019) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-019-09518-x · Cited by 30
When Do Replies to the Evolutionary Debunking Argument Against Moral Realism Beg the Question?
Morton, J. (2018) · Australasian Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/00048402.2018.1455718 · Cited by 26
“…worried about the perceptual domain: they worry that the Standard EDA is going to entail that if truths like ‘there is a tree in front of me’ are mind-independent, then we can’t have knowledge regarding them [Schafer 2010; Enoch 2011: 158ff.; Shafer-Landau 2012; Berker 2014; Vavova 2014].”
BackgroundInfluentialDebunking Arguments in Metaethics and Metaphysics
Korman, D. (2019) · Metaphysics and Cognitive Science · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190639679.003.0014 · Cited by 19
Evolutionary arguments against moral realism: Why the empirical details matter (and which ones do)
Hopster, J. K. G. (2018) · Biology & Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s10539-018-9652-0 · Cited by 21
Debunking Morality: Lessons from the EAAN Literature
Moon, A. (2016) · Pacific philosophical quarterly · doi:10.1111/papq.12165 · Cited by 21
Ethics and Evolutionary Theory
Wielenberg, E. J. (2016) · Analysis · doi:10.1093/analys/anw061 · Cited by 21
Causal Impotence and Evolutionary Influence: Epistemological Challenges for Non-Naturalism
Crow, D. (2015) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-015-9625-1 · Cited by 20
Shaping the World in One's Image: An Essay on the Nature and Value of Achievements
von Kriegstein, H. (2014) · Cited by 18
The Puzzle of Pure Moral Motivation
Lerner, A. J. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823841.003.0006 · Cited by 17
“²² For exceptions, see Shafer-Landau (2012), Wedgwood (2007), Cuneo (2006), and Oddie (2005).”
BackgroundHuman altruism, evolution and moral philosophy
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2017) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.170441 · Cited by 19
“See also [11] for a particularly helpful overview and critical discussion of evolutionary debunking arguments.”
BackgroundExplaining our Moral Reliability
Dogramaci, S. (2016) · Pacific philosophical quarterly · doi:10.1111/papq.12153 · Cited by 16
A New Route from Moral Disagreement to Moral Skepticism
Risberg, O., & Tersman, F. (2019) · Journal of the American Philosophical Association · doi:10.1017/apa.2019.3 · Cited by 16
“See Tersman (2006) for an overview. 3 For some relevant discussion, see Nisbett & Cohen (1996), Doris & Plakias (2008), Fraser & Hauser (2010) and Demetriou (2014). 4 For example, Shafer-Landau (2006: 56) urges that the challenge generalizes to all areas of philosophy.”
BackgroundInfluentialEvolutionary debunking of morality: epistemological or metaphysical?
Das, R. (2015) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-015-0499-9 · Cited by 15
Rescuing tracking theories of morality
Artiga, M. (2015) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-015-0473-6 · Cited by 14
“However, recall that the Darwinian Dilemma assumes MORAL REALISM as a fundamental thesis (Kahane, 2011; Shafer-Landau, 2012; Vavova, 2015).”
BackgroundThe limits of rational belief revision: A dilemma for the Darwinian debunker
Vavova, K. (2020) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12327 · Cited by 14
From Moral Fixed Points to Epistemic Fixed Points
Kyriacou, C. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93369-6_4 · Cited by 12
Klenk, M. (2017) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-017-9797-y · Cited by 11
“However, disgust-moderated moral beliefs 22 Shafer-Landau (2012), who distinguishes between agnostic and knowledge-based EDAs. are not false because they are influenced by disgust; they are false because disgust in itself seems morally irrelevant.”
BackgroundMethodAre Evolutionary Debunking Arguments Self-Debunking?
Kyriacou, C. (2016) · Philosophia · doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9780-1 · Cited by 10
“Shafer-Landau (2012) distinguishes at least five different variations of what he calls ‘the Darwinian Debunking Argument’.”
BackgroundInfluentialBelief Pills and the Possibility of Moral Epistemology
Sinclair, N. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823841.003.0005 · Cited by 9
“The second suggests that were we ‘allowed to rely on some substantive moral claims in assessing the reliability of moral faculties, then we would be effectively [and implausibly] immunizing a class of moral beliefs from genealogical doubts’ (Shafer-Landau 2012: 21).”
Moorean Arguments against the Error Theory: a Defense
Sampson, E. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198884699.003.0009 · Cited by 8
A New Evolutionary Debunking Argument Against Moral Realism
Morton, J. (2016) · Journal of the American Philosophical Association · doi:10.1017/apa.2016.14 · Cited by 8
“The Standard EDA Moral realism, as I define it, is the thesis that (i) sincere moral judgments express beliefs, (ii) some of those beliefs are true, and (iii) the truth of moral beliefs does not constitutively depend on the attitude of any actual or hypothetical agent (Shafer-Landau 2012: 1).”
BackgroundInfluentialThird factor explanations and disagreement in metaethics
Klenk, M. (2018) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-018-1875-8 · Cited by 9
“…an adequate explanation proves to be impossible in principle, the challenge goes, then any prima facie justification that our objective moral beliefs might have is undercut.3 Several objectivists regard this challenge to be their most arduous test (Shafer-Landau 2012; Enoch 2010; Wielenberg 2014).”
BackgroundFuqua, J. (2021) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03100-z · Cited by 8
Nativism and the Evolutionary Debunking of Morality
Cline, B. (2014) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-014-0207-2 · Cited by 8
Can the empirical sciences contribute to the moral realism/anti-realism debate?
Pölzler, T. (2017) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1434-8 · Cited by 7
“…is unsupported by the available scientific evidence (e.g., Machery and Mallon 2010; May 2014; Meyers 2013; Pölzler 2015, 2016, forthcoming a, b), or by questioning this hypothesis’ supposed metaethical implications (e.g., Enoch 2009; FitzPatrick 2014, 2015; Loeb 2007; Shafer-Landau 2012).”
BackgroundThe Containment Problem and the Evolutionary Debunking of Morality
Millhouse, T., Bush, L. S., & Moss, D. A. (2015) · Evolutionary psychology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_5 · Cited by 6
“…and Wilkins ( 2010 ), Jong and Visala ( 2014 ), Joyce ( 2006 , 2013 , 2014 ), Kahane ( 2011 ), Mason ( 2010 ), Peters ( 2012 ), Schafer ( 2010 ), Shafer-Landau ( 2012 ), Skarsaune ( 2011 ), Street ( 2006 , 2008 ), Talbott ( 2014 ), Toner ( 2011 ), Vavova ( 2014 ), Visala ( 2011 ), Wielenberg (…”
Scientific Naturalism and the Explanation of Moral Beliefs
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2016) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118657775.ch27 · Cited by 6
The Dubious Moral Supervenience Thesis
Harrison, G. K. (2017) · Law and philosophy library · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61046-7_5 · Cited by 5
Evolutionary debunking: the Milvian Bridge destabilized
Kyriacou, C. (2017) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1555-0 · Cited by 5
“Shafer-Landau (2012), in particular, makes explicit that evolutionary debunking arguments about a philosophical domain quickly over-generalize to domains that seem beyond serious epistemological doubt and, therefore, we need to disambiguate the metaepistemic norm in virtue of which debunking…”
Jaquet, F. (2018) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-018-9956-9 · Cited by 4
From Scepticism to Anti-Realism
Tersman, F. (2019) · dialectica · doi:10.1111/1746-8361.12276 · Cited by 3
Evolutionary debunking of (arguments for) moral realism
Levy, A., & Saadon, I. W. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04157-8 · Cited by 3
“One such objection is that while evolution by natural selection may explain some of our moral beliefs there are beliefs that it is very hard to find an evolutionary “rationale” for (Copp 2008; FitzPatrick 2014; Parfit 2011, 534-8; Shafer-Landau 2012).”
BackgroundRecalibrating evolutionary debunking
Koon, J. (2023) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.1111/phpr.12975 · Cited by 4
Ingram, S. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198886488.001.0001 · Cited by 3
Hill, S. (2015) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-015-9760-z · Cited by 3
Moral Realism and the Argument from Skepticism
Risberg, O., & Tersman, F. (2020) · International Journal for the Study of Skepticism · doi:10.1163/22105700-bja10017 · Cited by 3
The Contingency of the Cultural Evolution of Morality, Debunking, and Theism vs. Naturalism
Braddock, M. C. (2021) · Synthese Library/Synthese library · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-68802-8_9 · Cited by 3
“Some moral objectivists float the suggestion that we know enough of these starting points through some capacity for “rational insight” (Shafer-Landau, 2012) or we “grasp” them through a complicated process of cultural training and critical reflection on our experience (FitzPatrick, 2015).”
Debunking, Epistemic Achievement, and Undermining Defeat
Klenk, M. (2022) · American Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.5406/21521123.59.1.04 · Cited by 3
Evolutionary Debunking Arguments, Explanatory Structure, and Anti-Realism
Schäfer, K. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316105672.005 · Cited by 3
The epistemology of evolutionary debunking
Koon, J. (2021) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03327-w · Cited by 3
“6 See White (2010), Shafer-Landau (2012), Vavova (2014; forthcoming), Bogardus (2016), ClarkeDoane (2016), Sinclair (2018) and Clarke-Doane and Baras (2021).”
BackgroundHow to be a compatibilist in metaphysics: the epistemic strategy
Carrara, M., & Morato, V. (2020) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/0020174x.2020.1846612 · Cited by 2
Theism & Evolutionary Debunking Arguments Against Moral Realism
Rezkalla, P. (2020) · European Journal for Philosophy of Religion · doi:10.24204/ejpr.v12i3.3409 · Cited by 4
Exorcism and Justified Belief in Demons
Hunt, M. W. (2020) · Forum Philosophicum · doi:10.35765/forphil.2020.2502.17 · Cited by 2
La réponse naturelle : une solution inadéquate au dilemme darwinien
Beaudoin, F. A. (2015) · Philosophiques · doi:10.7202/1032221ar · Cited by 2
Street on evolution and the normativity of epistemic reasons
Evers, D. (2015) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0714-4 · Cited by 2
“I dispute this premise in the main text. of moral conceptual truths than is often assumed was prefigured in Shafer-Landau 2012, and worked out in greater detail in Cuneo and Shafer-Landau 2014).”
BackgroundLe quasi-réalisme et l’argument de la coïncidence
Rocheleau-Houle, D. (2018) · Dialogue · doi:10.1017/s0012217318000252 · Cited by 2
Famine, Affluence and Intuitions: Evolutionary Debunking Proves Too Much
Holtzman, G. S. (2018) · Disputatio · doi:10.2478/disp-2018-0003 · Cited by 2
Dyke, M. M. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198859512.003.0010 · Cited by 2
Metaphysical separatism and epistemological autonomy in Frege’s philosophy and beyond
Hutchinson, J. (2022) · British Journal for the History of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/09608788.2022.2085076 · Cited by 2
Evolutionary debunking arguments and the explanatory scope of natural selection
Witteveen, J. (2019) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02446-9 · Cited by 2
A dilemma for evolutionary debunking arguments
Leibowitz, U. D. (2020) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-020-01420-3 · Cited by 2
“(Shafer-Landau (2012) pp. 2–3) In much the same way that our judgment that there are exactly 5,422,000,000,000 fish in the world’s oceans is unlikely to be true because the U.S. trade deficit is 7 Street’s final target is anti-realism rather than moral scepticism, but her way to anti-realism is via…”
BackgroundInfluentialDisagreement and Doubts About Darwinian Debunking
Plakias, A. (2022) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-021-10263-8 · Cited by 2
How (not) to integrate scientific and moral realism
Schäfer, L.-P. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04467-x · Cited by 1
In what sense is evolution blind to moral truth?
McKay, N. (2025) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05188-z · Cited by 1
A Stalemate in Naturalizing Ethics: Insights from Theories of Punishment
Lavazza, A., Bonicalzi, S., & De, M. (2025) · International Journal of Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1080/09672559.2025.2603185 · Cited by 1
Beaudoin, F. A. (2016) · Dialogue · doi:10.1017/s0012217316000214 · Cited by 1
Evolutionary anti-realism in ethics
Živanović, I. (2017) · Theoria Beograd · doi:10.2298/theo1702046z · Cited by 1
Argument darwinowski w metaetyce
Kuźniar, A. (2018) · Filozofia Nauki · doi:10.14394/filnau.2018.0016 · Cited by 1
Striking coincidences: How realists should reason about them
Hopster, J. K. G. (2019) · Ratio · doi:10.1111/rati.12221 · Cited by 1
“Such an explanation may be forthcoming, however: conceptual realists may argue, for instance, that these mind‐independent conceptual truths causally influence the normative judgments of moral agents (cf. Shafer‐Landau, 2012).”
Background‘Varieties of Skeptical Invariantism I & II’
Kyriacou, C. (2021) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12739 · Cited by 1
Can Rational Reflection Save Moral Knowledge from Debunking?
McKay, N. (2023) · Episteme · doi:10.1017/epi.2023.37 · Cited by 1
“Russ Shafer-Landau (2017) proposes a general strategy for distinguishing moral beliefs that are the products of evolution from those that are not.”
Ingram, S. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198886488.003.0005 · Cited by 1
Bengson, J., Cuneo, T. D., & Shafer‐Landau, R. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198914594.003.0001 · Cited by 1
Self-citationThe Normative Significance of Cognitive Science Reconsidered
Locke, D. (2019) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.1093/pq/pqz072 · Cited by 1
Why undermining evolutionary debunkers is not enough
del Rio, A. (2021) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03123-6 · Cited by 1
“Shafer-Landau (2012) seems to state the position explicitly: “Until such a time as we can mount a successful formal strategy for vindicating the reliability of our moral faculties, moral realists will have to focus directly on trying to undermine at least one premise of the Darwinian Argument….”
BackgroundTwo versions of the evolutionary debunking arguments and their challenges to moral realism
Leal, V. E. P. (2021) · Filosofia e História da Biologia · doi:10.11606/issn.2178-6224v16i1p87-112 · Cited by 1
“He thinks that such a possibility is remote (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p 8).”
BackgroundInfluentialBush, L. S. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_518-1 · Cited by 1
“…many critics (Behrends 2013; Berker 2014; Bogardus 2016; Brosnan 2011; Carruthers and James 2008; Deem 2016; Enoch 2010; FitzPatrick 2014a, b, 2015; Kahane 2011; Mogensen 2014a; Peters 2012, Schafer 2010; Shafer-Landau 2012; Skarsaune 2011; Talbott 2015; Toner 2011; Vavova 2014; Wielenberg 2010).”
BackgroundBush, L. S. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_518 · Cited by 2
Toppinen, T. (2014)
Evolutionary Ethics? Substantiators, Skeptics, and Moral Realism
Jimenez, K. C. (2013) · Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) · doi:10.11575/prism/26002
The Epistemological Implications of the Causes of Moral Beliefs
O’Neill, E. (2015) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)
Recasting the Darwinian Dilemma
Brummett, A. L. (2014) · IRL - University of Missouri, St. Louis (University of Missouri–St. Louis)
Reasons: A Naturalistic Explanation
Jurjako, M. (2016)
Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Ethics
Machuca, D. E. (2018) · doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0366
Foster, C. (2022) · Digital Archive @ GSU · doi:10.57709/12162896
Colebrook, R. (2018) · CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York)
Sharon Street and Debunking of Morality
Najafi, M. (2018) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)
Darwinizing debunking arguments
Davies, P. S. (2019) · Ratio · doi:10.1111/rati.12231 · Cited by 1
Krytyki genealogiczne i autonomia przekonań moralnych
Kuźniar, A. (2019) · Roczniki Filozoficzne · doi:10.18290/rf.2019.67.3-5
Big History, Value, and the Art of Continued Existence
Cline, B. (2019) · Philosophia · doi:10.1007/s11406-019-00124-1
“…Behrends 2013; Bogardus 2016; Brosnan 2011; Copp 2008; Crow 2016; Das 2016; Enoch 2010; FitzPatrick 2014, 2015; Huemer 2016; Machery and Mallon 2010; Nagel 2012; Parfit 2011, chs. 32–33; Sauer 2018, ch. 2; Schafer 2010; Shafer-Landau 2012; Skarsaune 2011; Toner 2011; Vavova 2014; Wielenberg 2010).”
BackgroundThe Evolutionary Vindication of Morality
Iversen, R. R. (2005) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2880.003.0007
Metadata
- Authors
- Shafer-Landau, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison
- Venue
- Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy
- Published
- 2013-01-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-38
- ISSN
- 1559-3061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W330102725
- Semantic Scholar
- 3e748e37d295ef268384ad72c4677541f203d77f
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 75.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- evolutionary debunking arguments, moral realism, moral knowledge, moral epistemology, moral sense, warrants, moral beliefs, moral intuitions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
