It is generally believed that evolutionary ethics commits the naturalistic fallacy by trying to derive norma-tive conclusions from the facts of evolutionary biology.However,Richards believes that the naturalistic fallacy is not a fallacy.Joyce considers Richards'defense unsuccessful.But his rebuttal doesn't really refute Richards.On the one hand,identity or position and corresponding obligations and norms are stipulated at the same time,and there is no gap between"is"and"ought";on the other hand,Richards thinks that the minimal semantic meaning of"ought"is connecting property and expectation,and the property is also a kind of"is",from which"ought"can be derived.By clarifying the content and function of the inference principle and distinguishing the different meanings of"ought",some possible objections are also shown to be unreasonable.Richards successfully demon-strates that there is no naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary ethics.Richards'defense of evolutionary ethics offers one way to resolve the naturalistic fallacy.
evolutionary ethicsnaturalistic fallacyRichardsJoyceis-ought problem
万方数据
