Out Of Their Depth?
process.” This is a bit of deception. UB may not have been selected for by
evolution — even remotely —but that does not exonerate it. Even if UB’s justification
is “less debunkable” than RE’s, 4 this would not mean UB is a candidate for a
normative truth, for a better candidate is not necessarily a good candidate. UB may
be preferable to RE, but the question is not whether it is preferable, but whether it
is justifiable.
I have argued it is not. The contaminants that threaten UB’s justification are
not obvious, but that is no argument against them. To engage with them properly
requires digging deeper than LRS do when they attempt to resolve Sidgwick’s
dualism.
4 This is likely the case for evolutionary debunking. Interestingly, for “sociological” debunking, the reverse might be more plausible: thanks in part to people like Jesus, Schweitzer, Sidgwick, and Singer, it is increasingly out of fashion to publicly espouse principles of partial benevolence, including egoism.
Volume VI (2023)
60
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker