Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWolinsky, Max
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-26T14:29:23Z
dc.date.available2013-08-26T14:29:23Z
dc.date.issued2013-08-26
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10222/36243
dc.description.abstractGenealogical arguments which aim to undermine some aspect of ethics by referring to its supposed evolutionary origin have become both more common and more philosophically substantive in recent years. In this thesis, I present what I take to be the strongest evolutionary debunking argument aimed against the meta-ethical view of moral realism. Specifically, I present Sharon Street’s Darwinian Dilemma. I then consider the strongest responses given in defense of moral realism by Derek Parfit and Russ Shafer-Landau. I give reason to reject most of Parfit’s and Shafer-Landau’s responses and then suggest that due to a lack of justification for our moral beliefs (if moral realism is true) we ought to have a lower level of credence in them.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectEDAen_US
dc.subjectethicsen_US
dc.subjectevolutionary debunkingen_US
dc.subjectevolutionary ethicsen_US
dc.subjectSharon Streeten_US
dc.titleGET REAL(ISM): EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS AND MORAL REALISMen_US
dc.date.defence2013-08-19
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Philosophyen_US
dc.contributor.degreeMaster of Artsen_US
dc.contributor.external-examinern/aen_US
dc.contributor.graduate-coordinatorMike Hymersen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-readerDuncan MacIntoshen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-readerKirstin Borgersonen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-supervisorGreg Scherkoskeen_US
dc.contributor.ethics-approvalNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.manuscriptsNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.copyright-releaseNot Applicableen_US
 Find Full text

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record