PhilArchive
open access
Evolutionary Explanations of Our Reliability
It can easily look like evolution is in a better position to explain the reliability of our perceptual beliefs than the reliability of our moral beliefs. This paper takes a closer look at the issue and argues that there’s no reason—no reason which armchair philosophers could uncover—to think evolution can better explain perceptual reliability than moral reliability. It also offers a diagnosis of why it seemed otherwise. The diagnosis concerns our need to use the truth predicate as a generalizing logical device in the perceptual case but not in the moral case.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Evolutionary debunking arguments in three domains: Fact, value, and religion#777253
- The Debunking Challenge to Realism: How Evolution (Ultimately) Matters#117381
- Crossing the Milvian bridge: When do evolutionary explanations of belief debunk belief?#737932
- Scientific Explanation and Moral Explanation#747906
- Escaping the Darwinian Dilemma with Cooperation-based Moral Realism#94746
Record · ID 83739
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive