EPISTEMOLOGY OF EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS

V. Derkach
{"title":"EPISTEMOLOGY OF EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS","authors":"V. Derkach","doi":"10.17721/2415-881x.2023.90.85-105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article presents the logic of justification of moral norms based on the apparatus of the theory of evolution, reconstruction of the course of anthropogenesis as well as modeling the consequences of accepting a prescription as a norm with a forecast of its acceptability for a particular community. The justification of a moral norm from the side of the decision-making process can be based exclusively on two types of revealed dependencies of the actual world («nature of phenomena»): (1) reconstruction of the historical formation of a specific mechanism for regulating the behavior of an individual in society, which determines its objective characteristics — morality; (2) predicting the consequences of the consolidation of a certain norm, which are expressed in the assessment of the stability of the entity that cultivates this norm in its environment, including competition with other communities, as well as the possibility that this norm will be accepted by this community, given the objective configuration of the already established mechanisms of behavior regulation, mental attitudes and a set of norms and the degrees of freedom in permissible transformations that can be realized in this system in real time. However, no amount of knowledge alone is identical to an internal willingness to act in a certain way, and there is no argumentation that is universally effective in this regard. Likewise, the search for «true good» and some autonomous «morality» as a cognizable criterion of the proper in action, the cognition of which sets a specific system of values, is meaningless. The logic of evolutionary ethics, therefore, does not contain a naturalistic fallacy. The mistake is not that the description of facts and patterns leads to the conclusion that a precept is obligatory, but that this precept is taken out of the context of the objective conditions for the formation of a structure of relations in which an individual is motivated to act, guided by a specific model. However, comprehending the consequences of adopting a certain norm can never lead to an unambiguous conclusion for any rational agent, because the ability to foresee the entire set of moves and consequences is limited, just as the agent himself is never free from his history and the attitudes he has formed.Thus, the search for a universal moral law that defines an absolute system of value coordinates is a futile endeavor, which, however, does not exclude the possibility that in the course of the development of societies, moral norms are modified so that these communities become more stable when compared to their predecessors in some horizon of the predicted course of events.","PeriodicalId":179135,"journal":{"name":"Politology bulletin","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politology bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2023.90.85-105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article presents the logic of justification of moral norms based on the apparatus of the theory of evolution, reconstruction of the course of anthropogenesis as well as modeling the consequences of accepting a prescription as a norm with a forecast of its acceptability for a particular community. The justification of a moral norm from the side of the decision-making process can be based exclusively on two types of revealed dependencies of the actual world («nature of phenomena»): (1) reconstruction of the historical formation of a specific mechanism for regulating the behavior of an individual in society, which determines its objective characteristics — morality; (2) predicting the consequences of the consolidation of a certain norm, which are expressed in the assessment of the stability of the entity that cultivates this norm in its environment, including competition with other communities, as well as the possibility that this norm will be accepted by this community, given the objective configuration of the already established mechanisms of behavior regulation, mental attitudes and a set of norms and the degrees of freedom in permissible transformations that can be realized in this system in real time. However, no amount of knowledge alone is identical to an internal willingness to act in a certain way, and there is no argumentation that is universally effective in this regard. Likewise, the search for «true good» and some autonomous «morality» as a cognizable criterion of the proper in action, the cognition of which sets a specific system of values, is meaningless. The logic of evolutionary ethics, therefore, does not contain a naturalistic fallacy. The mistake is not that the description of facts and patterns leads to the conclusion that a precept is obligatory, but that this precept is taken out of the context of the objective conditions for the formation of a structure of relations in which an individual is motivated to act, guided by a specific model. However, comprehending the consequences of adopting a certain norm can never lead to an unambiguous conclusion for any rational agent, because the ability to foresee the entire set of moves and consequences is limited, just as the agent himself is never free from his history and the attitudes he has formed.Thus, the search for a universal moral law that defines an absolute system of value coordinates is a futile endeavor, which, however, does not exclude the possibility that in the course of the development of societies, moral norms are modified so that these communities become more stable when compared to their predecessors in some horizon of the predicted course of events.
进化伦理学的认识论
本文在进化论的基础上,提出了道德规范的正当性逻辑,重构了人类形成的过程,并对接受一种规定作为规范的后果进行了建模,并预测了它对特定社区的可接受性。从决策过程的角度为道德规范辩护可以完全基于两种类型的现实世界的揭示依赖性(“现象的本质”):(1)重建一个特定机制的历史形成,以调节社会中的个人行为,这决定了其客观特征-道德;(2)预测某种规范巩固的后果,这表现在对培养该规范的实体在其环境中的稳定性的评估中,包括与其他社区的竞争,以及该规范被该社区接受的可能性,考虑到已经建立的行为监管机制的客观配置;心理态度和一套规范以及在允许的转换中的自由度,这些可以在这个系统中实时实现。然而,单独的知识数量并不等同于以某种方式行动的内在意愿,在这方面也没有普遍有效的论证。同样,寻找“真善”和一些自主的“道德”作为行动中适当的认知标准,对其的认知设定了一个特定的价值体系,是毫无意义的。因此,进化伦理学的逻辑并不包含自然主义的谬误。错误不在于对事实和模式的描述导致戒律是强制性的结论,而在于这种戒律脱离了形成一种关系结构的客观条件的背景,在这种关系结构中,个人在特定模式的指导下被激励去行动。然而,对于任何理性的主体来说,理解采用某种规范的后果永远不能得出一个明确的结论,因为预见一整套行动和后果的能力是有限的,就像主体本身永远不能摆脱他的历史和他形成的态度一样。因此,寻找一个普遍的道德法则来定义一个绝对的价值坐标系统是徒劳的努力,然而,这并不排除这样一种可能性,即在社会发展的过程中,道德规范被修改,以便这些社区在预测事件进程的某些范围内与它们的前辈相比变得更加稳定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信