Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 33:33 | Cite as

Evolutionary models and the normative significance of stability

  • Arnon Levy
Article
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

Many have expected that understanding the evolution of norms should, in some way, bear on our first-order normative outlook: How norms evolve should shape which norms we accept. But recent philosophy has not done much to shore up this expectation. Most existing discussions of evolution and norms either jump headlong into the is/ought gap or else target meta-ethical issues, such as the objectivity of norms. My aim in this paper is to sketch a different way in which evolutionary considerations can feed into normative thinking—focusing on stability. I will discuss two (related) forms of argument that utilize information about social stability drawn from evolutionary models, and employs it to assess claims in political philosophy. One such argument treats stability as feature of social states that may be taken into account alongside other features. The other uses stability as a constraint on the realization of social ideals, via a version of the ought-implies-can maxim. These forms of argument are not new; indeed they have a history going back at least to early modern philosophy. But their marriage with evolutionary information is relatively recent, has a significantly novel character, and has received little attention in recent moral and political philosophy.

Keywords

Evolutionary models Stability Norms Idealization 

References

  1. Alexander JM (2007) The structural evolution of morality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batterman R, Rice C (2014) Minimal model explanations. Philos Sci 81(3):349–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binmore K (1994) Playing fair: game theory and the social contract I. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Binmore K (1998) Just playing: game theory and the social contract II. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Binmore K (2005) Natural justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung H (2017) The instability of John Rawls’s “stability for the right reasons”. Episteme.  https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2017.14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen GA (2009) Why not socialism? Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Enoch D (2005) Why idealize? Ethics 115(4):759–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enoch D (2010) The epistemological challenge to metanormative realism: how best to understand it, and how to cope with it. Philos Stud 148(3):413–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Estlund D (2011) Human nature and the limits (if any) of political philosophy. Philos Public Aff 39(3):207–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick W (2014) Morality and evolutionary biology. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring 2016 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/morality-biology/
  12. Gilabert P (2017) Justice and feasibility: a dynamical approach. In: Vallier K, Weber M (eds) Political utopias: contemporary debates. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilabert P, Lawford-Smith H (2012) Political feasibility: a conceptual exploration. Polit Stud 60(4):809–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graham PA (2011) ‘Ought’ and ability. Philos Rev 120(3):337–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harms W, Skyrms B (2008) Evolution of moral norms. In: Ruse M (ed) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Holmes P, Shea-Brown ET (2006) Stability. Scholarpedia 1(10):1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joyce R (2006) The evolution of morality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Kitcher P (2011) The ethical project. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawford-Smith H (2013) Understanding political feasibility. J Polit Philos 21(3):243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levy A (2011) Game theory, indirect modeling and the origins of morality. J Philos CVII(4):171–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy A (2018) Idealization and abstraction: refining the distinction. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1721-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levy A, Levy Y (forthcoming) Evolutionary debunking arguments meet the science of evolution. Philos Phenomenol ResGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewens T (2015) Cultural evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruse M (1986) Taking darwin seriously. Prometheus Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruse M, Wilson EO (1986) Moral philosophy as applied science. Philosophy 61:173–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schelling TC (1971) Dynamic models of segregation. J Math Sociol 1(2):143–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skyrms B (1996) Evolution and the social contract. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Skyrms B (2003) The stag and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Southwood N (2016) Does ‘ought’ imply ‘feasible’? Philos Public Aff 44(1):7–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Street S (2006) A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philos Stud 127(1):109–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Valentini L (2012) Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: a conceptual map. Philos Compass 7(9):654–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vranas PBM (2007) I ought, therefore i can. Philos Stud 136(2):167–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weibull JW (1995) Evolutionary game theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Weisberg M (2006) Robustness analysis. Philos Sci 73(5):730–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weisberg M (2007) Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy 104(12):639–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weithman PJ (2010) Why political liberalism? On John Rawls’ political turn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Wimsatt W (1981) Robustness, reliability and overdetermination. In: Brewer M, Collins B (eds) Scientific inquiry and the social sciences. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  38. Young HP (2004) Strategic learning and its limits. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations