You’re right that the debate seems backwards. Evo psych should be used to make correct predictions and find optimal actions, not create or justify moral norms.
btw Is there a name to the “natural → good” bias/fallacy?
It’s called the naturalistic fallacy.
N.B. This is the less common use of the phrase “naturalistic fallacy”, and where possible “appeal to nature” might be preferred (when describing an argument).
It’s called the naturalistic fallacy.
You’re right that the debate seems backwards. Evo psych should be used to make correct predictions and find optimal actions, not create or justify moral norms.
N.B. This is the less common use of the phrase “naturalistic fallacy”, and where possible “appeal to nature” might be preferred (when describing an argument).
No, “appeal to nature” is the much more common use of “naturalistic fallacy,” unless you only count use by philosophers.
Touché