Marist Undergraduate Philosophy Journal Vol VI 2023

Out Of Their Depth?

valuable (among many other dubious claims). This may seem acceptable, but it is

not. It would violate the hedonist’s claim that pleasure and pain are the only

intrinsic goods or bads.

But LRS have created an even deeper problem for themselves. If, as above,

our normative evaluations of pain are distinct from, and not implied by, our

motivational (or qualitative) evaluations of it, then LRS can defend against

evolutionary debunking, but it seems they can no longer sustain Lerner- and

Sinhababu-type claims that slide between the two stances. On the other hand, if our

normative evaluations of pain are implied by, or equivalent to, our motivational

evaluations of it, then LRS can slide between the two stances and claim that pain is

normatively bad, but they will surrender their defense against evolutionary

debunking, for one of the stances (the motivational) is plainly contaminated.

It is more plausible, I suggest, that our normative evaluations of pain are not

implied by our motivational evaluations, and that beliefs about the intrinsic value

of sweet things, fire, and pleasure and pain are all debunkable. But how is it

possible to debunk these beliefs if they were not likely to be directly selected for?

It is possible because, as Kahane (2011, pp. 111-112) notes, for an

evolutionary debunking argument to go through, it is not necessary that the object

of debunking is an adaptation. It may also be an “exaptation”— a trait that takes on

a new function. Given the relative ease with which we confuse normative and the

motivating stances — as LRS themselves display above — it does not stretch the

imagination to think that we may have taken the unpleasantness of pain to mean

normative badness at some point. That is, perhaps our normative evaluation of pain

was exapted from our motivating evaluation of it, because this move was all too

convenient, though not necessarily directly adaptive. This would undermine the

reliability of the normative evaluation.

Conclusion: Debunking Runs Deep

Volume VI (2023)

58

Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker