Search

Među suvremenim filozofima znanosti i biologije, rasprave o odnosu teorije evolucije i klasične etike postale su vrlo sofisticirane s jasno obilježenim istraživačkim područjima. No među filozofima i etičarima čiji primarni interes nije evolucijska teorija česta je tendencija da se naziv 'evolucijska etika' koristi u jednom smislu koji je preširok i nedovoljno određen. Međutim, povijesni razvoj evolucijske etike treba podijeliti na barem dvije zasebne etape: na prvu etapu koja, grubo rečeno, obuhvaća razdoblje od pojave Darvinove teorije do sredine 20. stoljeća, te na drugu etapu koja obuhvaća razdoblje od pojave sociobiologije sedamdesetih godina 20. stoljeća do danas. U članku se prikazuje znanstvene i filozofske specifičnosti ovih dviju etapa evolucijske etike, ističe se činjenicu da evolucijska etika nije jedan jedinstveni projekt, te se upozorava da tu činjenicu ne smijemo izgubiti iz vida ako želimo da naše ocjene evolucijske etike (bile one pozitivne ili negativne) budu shvaćene ozbiljno., Among contemporary philosophers of science and philosophers of biology, the debates about the relation between the Danvinian theory of evolution and classical ethics became highly sophisticated with clearly delineated research areas. Among philosophers and ethicists not specializing in evolutionary theory, however, there is a common tendency to use the term 'evolutionary ethics' in a sense that is often too wide and undetermined. Yet, one should divide the historical development of evolutionary ethics into at least two distinct stages: the first stage that, broadly speaking, encompasses the period from the occurrence of Darmn's theory to the mid 20th century, and the second stage that encompasses the period from the occurrence of socio-biology in the 1970ies to the present. The primary objective of this article is to show why and how these two stages of evolutionary ethics (despite common philosophical tendency to envisage them as two parts of one unique whole) should nevertheless be strictly distinguished, particularly by emphasizing their distinctive scientific and philosophical (ethical) features. After the introductory definition of evolutionary ethics and the illustration of the basic philosophical and methodological disputes that surround it, follows the analysis of the first stage of evolutionary ethics. This stage of evolutionary ethics characterizes primarily Danvin's attempt at explaining human moral nature by employing some basic principles of his evolutionary theory, and especially Herbert Spencer 's views, according to which certain moral guidance is inherent in the general (cosmic) evolutionary process. What follows is the analysis of the second stage of evolutionary ethics that is built upon socio-biological explanations of human (kin and reciprocal) altruism, which in turn provided basis for some specific modem day versions of evolutionary ethics, like the one offered by Michael Ruse. In its final section, the article summarizes distinctive scientific and philosophical features of both stages of evolutionary ethics, highlights the fact that evolutionary ethics is not one unique project, and points out that this fact should not be neglected if we want our theoretical assessments of evolutionary ethics (be they positive or negative) to be taken seriously.

U članku se argumentira da se suvremena evolucijska etika, u mjeri u kojoj preuzima sociobiološke strategije naturaliziranja ljudskog morala, suočava s nekim ozbiljnim konceptualnim i eksplanatornim poteškoćama. Konceptualna se poteškoća sastoji u uvidu da “moral” nije isto što i “altruizam”, već obuhvaća više specifičnih elemenata uslijed kojih ga se smatra upravo moralom, a ne evolucijskim ili psihološkim altruizmom. Eksplanatorna se poteškoća sastoji u uvidu da korektno konceptualizirani fenomen morala nije moguće uklopiti u standardna sociobiološka objašnjenja bez ugrožavanja nekih osnovnih pretpostavki tih objašnjenja, prije svega pretpostavke “genskog selekcionizma” i pretpostavke “evolucijski stabilnih strategija” (ESS). Osnovni argument glasi da ne možemo zadržati i korektan pojam (opis) ljudskog morala i ključne pretpostavke sociobioloških objašnjenja., In the article it is argued that contemporary evolutionary ethics – to the extent it accepts sociobiological strategies of naturalizing human morality – faces some serious conceptual and explanatory difficulties. Conceptual difficulty consists in recognizing that “morality” is not the same as “altruism”, but rather comprises several specific elements which distinguish it from both evolutionary and psychological altruism. Explanatory difficulty consists in recognizing that the phenomenon of morality appropriately conceptualized cannot be incorporated into standard sociobiological explanations without endangering some basic assumptions of those explanations, primarily the assumption of “gene selectionism”, as well as the assumption of “evolutionarily stable strategies” (ESS). The basic argument is that one cannot retain both the appropriate concept (description) of human morality and key assumptions of sociobiological explanations.

U članku se argumentira da se suvremena evolucijska etika, u mjeri u kojoj preuzima sociobiološke strategije naturaliziranja ljudskog morala, suočava s nekim ozbiljnim konceptualnim i eksplanatornim poteškoćama. Konceptualna se poteškoća sastoji u uvidu da “moral” nije isto što i “altruizam”, već obuhvaća više specifičnih elemenata uslijed kojih ga se smatra upravo moralom, a ne evolucijskim ili psihološkim altruizmom. Eksplanatorna se poteškoća sastoji u uvidu da korektno konceptualizirani fenomen morala nije moguće uklopiti u standardna sociobiološka objašnjenja bez ugrožavanja nekih osnovnih pretpostavki tih objašnjenja, prije svega pretpostavke “genskog selekcionizma” i pretpostavke “evolucijski stabilnih strategija” (ESS). Osnovni argument glasi da ne možemo zadržati i korektan pojam (opis) ljudskog morala i ključne pretpostavke sociobioloških objašnjenja., In the article it is argued that contemporary evolutionary ethics – to the extent it accepts sociobiological strategies of naturalizing human morality – faces some serious conceptual and explanatory difficulties. Conceptual difficulty consists in recognizing that “morality” is not the same as “altruism”, but rather comprises several specific elements which distinguish it from both evolutionary and psychological altruism. Explanatory difficulty consists in recognizing that the phenomenon of morality appropriately conceptualized cannot be incorporated into standard sociobiological explanations without endangering some basic assumptions of those explanations, primarily the assumption of “gene selectionism”, as well as the assumption of “evolutionarily stable strategies” (ESS). The basic argument is that one cannot retain both the appropriate concept (description) of human morality and key assumptions of sociobiological explanations.