Who's afraid of the naturalistic fallacy?

Journal article

David Hume argued that values are the projections of natural human desires, and that moral values are the projections of desires that aim at the common good of society. Recent developments in game theory, evolutionary biology, animal behaviour and neuroscience explain why humans have such desires, and hence provide support for a Humean approach to moral psychology and moral philosophy. However, few philosophers have been willing to pursue this naturalistic approach to ethics for fear that it commits something called 'the naturalistic fallacy'. This paper reviews several versions of the fallacy, and demonstrates that none of them present an obstacle to this updated, evolutionary version of Humean ethical naturalism.

Authors: Curry, O

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Journal: Evolutionary Psychology
• Volume: 4
• Pages: 234-247
• Publication date: 2006-01-01
• Edition: Publisher's version
• ISSN: 1474-7049
• Language: English
• Keywords: evolutionary ethics; Hume; values; naturalistic fallacy; is-ought gap