Diotima: The Marist Undergraduate Philosophy Journal
Before closing, let us throw one more debunking attempt in the ring. It does not
take much digging to notice that UB may also be contaminated by strong non-
evolutionary forces. A “sociological” debunking explanation of UB might contend
that, contra S, the “moral circle” has not expanded due to reason, but rather
because our social circles have been expanding (for instance, because of technology,
from the alphabet and agriculture to the printing press and social media).
The larger the community, the more likely a UB-type principle would be to
catch fire, since the stakes of reciprocal interactions would higher — and more. An
expanding social circle means more eyes to judge, and more chances to prove oneself
magnanimous, or at least fair. As we know from a case study of that ever fair and
magnanimous Jesus, espousing a UB-esque philosophy has its genetic drawbacks
(He was crucified). But as we also know from Jesus, it also has its “memetic”
advantages (in most places, do not forget, the year is 2022 ). Perhaps, then, UB-
esque memes were selected for in the marketplace of ideas not because they were
more rational or correct but because they had more “memetic potential” in an
expanding social world.
This debunking explanation recalls Tullis’ (2015) attempt to debunk UB on
S’s own terms. However, it is different from Tullis’ account, since it i ntroduces the
idea that our social circle has expanded, and that this is the driver behind the
expanding moral circle, and it purports to show how benevolence — not merely
impartiality —may have arisen, overcoming a limitation of Tullis’ account. On Tullis’
account, it is unclear why benevolence should have extended to non-human
animals, who cannot understand our giving impartial reasons for action. But on the
present account, (the guise of) benevolence towards non-human animals makes
humans look fair and magnanimous — in a word, Christlike — to each other, so there
would be social (not necessarily evolutionary ) pressure in favor of UB’s proliferation.
This is all speculative, and I am not claiming this to be anything more than a
possibility. But it is possibilities like this — and the contaminants canvassed above —
that LRS largely ignore. Instead, they seize on the absence in UB of that
elephantine issue with RE —that it is likely the “ direct outcome of an evolutionary
Volume VI (2023)
59
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker