

































50

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

δι
άν

οι
α

AGAINST EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS
ROBERTO UREÑA

The theory of evolutionary ethics suggests that the biological process 
of natural selection can supply a foundation for morality. I will argue 
that evolutionary ethics is incapable of providing such a foundation, 
because it lacks empirical and rational evidence to support it, because 
it yields unacceptable moral outcomes, and because it cannot overcome 
the ‘is-ought’ problem.

§1: THE PLACE OF EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS IN CONTEMPO-
RARY SCHOLARSHIP
The theory of evolutionary ethics, once dormant, is stirring in academia 
again—not so much among professional philosophers as among the 
biologists and psychologists. More and more, the natural sciences tout 
their assurance that the origins of moral sentiment, and perhaps of mo-
rality itself, are to be found in evolutionary biology.1 More and more, 
there is a sense that, as de Waal expresses it, “morality requires and 
probably has an evolutionary explanation.”2

At the present time, such talk is largely relegated to the natural 
sciences. Philosophically, evolutionary ethics has long been considered 
n e p  e i  e r  ing een s  i  is supp se su ien -

1 See, for instance, Dennis L. Krebs, “Morality: An Evolutionary Account,” 
Perspectives on Psychological Science 3, no. 3 (2008): 149-172, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00072.x. 

2  Frans B. M. de Waal, et al, “Evolved Morality: The Biology and 
Philosophy of Human Conscience,” Behavior 151 (2014): pp. 137-141; p. 
137. See also de Waal’s book by the same name.



51Issue XI ◊ Spring 2024

Against Evolutionary Ethics

ly dealt with by Thomas Huxley, and G. E. Moore.3 This discrepancy 
between the opinions of the philosophers and the metaethical specula-
tions of natural scientists, especially at a time when natural scientists 
are brazen in their claims of a coming explanatory omnipotence,4 casts 
philosophers skeptical of such claims in a poor light.5 There are, howev-
er—as I will argue—good reasons to be skeptical. The natural sciences 
are fully capable, it will be admitted, of describing all natural phenom-
ena—that is, of explaining how things are. The natural scientist, how-
ever, must ‘remove the sandals from their feet’ when approaching the 
subject of ethics—for ethics is not the study of how things are, but of 
how things ought to be.

S i  ere re ig  pes  n ur  s ien is s  e e  
 e i s   i e e e s  p si s  i g  n  ps g  i  

su u   e re en ess r   s ien i  pr gress  e r   e rs 
ago, biologist E. O. Wilson wrote that “the time has come for ethics to 
be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologi-
cized.”6 Slowly, steadily, biologists have been marching to the drumbeat 
of Wilson and others, advancing on the subject of morality. 

The purpose of this paper is to check these advances. To that 
end, it will be important to understand precisely what evolutionary eth-
ics is, before considering the problems with this theory.

§2:  DEFINING EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS
The theory of evolutionary ethics has been generally divided into three 
distinct categories: descriptive evolutionary ethics, prescriptive evolu-
tionary ethics, and evolutionary metaethics.7 Descriptive evolutionary 
ethics is concerned with the question of why human beings consider 

3 For a brief discussion of Huxley and Ruse on the subject, see Doris 
Schroeder, “Evolutionary Ethics,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
(Accessed 15 Nov 2023), https://iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/#H2. 

4 Consider, for instance, a quote from Peter Atkins’ provocatively titled 
chapter, ‘The Limitless Power of Science’: “There is no reason to suppose 
that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.” Peter Atkins, 
“The Limitless Power of Science,” in Nature’s Imagination: The Frontiers 
of Scientific Vision, ed. John Cornwell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 
1995), 125. 

5 The late Stephen Hawking argued as much in his much-acclaimed book on 
the interplay between philosophy and science, cited below: “Philosophy 
is dead,” he pronounced, because it “has not kept up with modern 
developments in science.” Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The 
Grand Design. New York, NY: Bantam Publishing, 2012. Quotes are from 
page 5. 

6  E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Press, 1975, 562. 

7  William FitzPatrick, “Morality and Evolutionary Biology,” Stanford 
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021), ed. Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.
stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/morality-biology/. 



52

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

certain actions to be moral or immoral. Prescriptive evolutionary ethics 
is concerned with grounding ethical theory in the biological evolution 
of the human being. Evolutionary metaethics is concerned with the 
ues i n  e er n   e u i n r  e r  per ins  e e  

of ethics as a whole.
 For the present purposes, this paper will not consider the ques-
tion of evolutionary metaethics, and will deal solely with the descrip-
tive and prescriptive aspects of evolutionary moral theory. Thus, there 
are only two claims which this paper will consider with regards to evo-
u i n r  e i s  e rs  i  i  is e es rip i e e u i n r  

ethics claim, is that moral sentiments are grounded in natural selection. 
In other words, the reason why human beings consider any particular 
action to be morally ‘good’ or morally ‘evil’ is because nature has 
selected for human beings with those particular moral sentiments. For 
example, on this theory, human beings consider the act of murder to 
be wrong because human beings with an aversion to murder—both to 
murdering others and to seeing others murdered—are more likely to 
survive and pass on their genes than human beings without such an 
aversion. As such, over time, human beings have nearly universally 
come to consider the act of murder as something which ‘ought not to 
be done.’ 
 It should be noted, of course, that the question of whether or 
not moral sentiments can be explained by natural selection is largely a 
matter of empirical inquiry. While there may be immediate objections 
to the idea of moral sentiments as a product of natural selection—for 
instance, on the grounds that such would seem to suggest an equal-
ization of ‘moral sentiment’ and ‘morality’—it is beyond the scope of 
this paper to address these concerns. Rather than engage in biological 
in es ig i n r e e i  spe u i n  I i  ins e  re  is rs  
claim as a given.  
 The second claim of evolutionary ethics, which is the prescrip-
tive claim, is that the summum bonum is to pass on one’s genes—that 
is, to reproduce.8 In other words, “actions that increase the long-term 
capacity of survival in evolutionary terms are good and actions that 
decrease this capacity are bad.”9 As this second postulation made by 
e u i n r  e i s is n  e piri  si e  u  is r er  p i -
osophical statement, the focus of the present paper will be on the 
validity of this aspect of evolutionary ethics. Henceforth, for the sake 
of simplicity, when I use the term ‘evolutionary ethics,’ it will be in ref-
erence to this second claim. To that end, it will be important to consider 

8 Throughout this paper, for the sake of simplicity, the terms ‘pass on one’s 
genes,’ ‘reproduce,’ and ‘procreate’ will be used synonymously.

9 Doris Schroeder, op. cit. 



53Issue XI ◊ Spring 2024

Against Evolutionary Ethics

the arguments made in favor of reproduction as the summum bonum by 
the proponents of evolutionary ethics. 

§3: SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS FOR EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS
Perhaps the chief argument made in favor of evolutionary ethics is 
that—unlike most other moral theories—evolutionary ethics grounds 
ethics does not require a metaphysical framework, and requires few 
ambiguous terms. In particular, evolutionary ethics avoids the some-

 pr e i  s   ing  e ne n  e p in e e is en e  
‘moral facts.’10 On an evolutionary ethical basis, what makes a moral 
statement ‘true’ or ‘false’ is not the correspondence of that statement to 
some moral fact, such as a standard of perfection, but whether or not 
natural selection has so inclined human beings to believe such a moral 
statement. As stated by John Teehan and Christopher diCarlo: 

The notion that ethical truths are “out there” waiting to be 
is ere  is i se  e re n n    pre s ien i  e  

thought. It stems back to a time when not only ethics, but sci-
ence itself was under the magisterium of religion. The progress 
of modern science can be viewed as a process of freeing the 
study of nature from religious/metaphysical constraints and 
establishing its own magisterium.11 

In an age when all that is not directly established in mathemat-
i s r e n ur  s ien es is i e   e es 12 evolutionary 
ethics enables the moral theorist to avoid metaphysical entanglements 

 pr i ing  signi n  re n re e gr un ing r r s
 A second argument in favor of evolutionary ethics is its capac-
ity to answer a number troubling moral questions in a more satisfying 
manner than many other moral theories. For instance, it has been gen-
erally observed that, across cultures and ages, most human beings share 
similar moral codes.13 Such a fact presents a problem to moral theories 
which maintain that moral codes—or, at least, moral sentiments—are 
a product of individual, family, or societal decision. From an evolu-
tionary moral perspective, however, this phenomenon has a simple and 
empirical explanation: Human moral sentiments are encoded in the 

10 See Michael Klenk, “Evolutionary Ethics,” in Introduction to Philosophy: 
Ethics, ed. George Matthews and Christina Hendricks (Montreal, QC, 
Canada: Rebus Press, 2020), 76-89; 85. 

11  John Teehan and Christopher diCarlo, “On the Naturalistic Fallacy: A 
Conceptual Basis for Evolutionary Ethics,” Evolutionary Psychology 2, no. 
1 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490400200108. 

12 A paraphrase of David Hume’s famous statement in his Enquiry 
Concerning Human Understanding.

13 See, for instance, John C. Gibbs, et al, “Moral Judgment Development 
Across



54

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

common gene pool of humanity, thus accounting for the similarities in 
moral codes across societies. Richard Dawkins—though not a propo-
nent of evolutionary ethics14—seems to agree with this explanation 
of moral sentiments when he says: “We have a moral sense which is 
built into our brains, like our sexual instinct or our fear of heights.”15 
Another problem which is readily resolved by the evolutionary moral 
theory is the question of where the compulsion to act in a morally good 

 es r   ressing e ues i n  r s s ien i  
rather than philosophically, evolutionary moral theorists avoid abstract 
speculation regarding the mechanics of how morality ‘works.’ Without 
having to posit any transcendent basis of moral compulsion—such as 
a God who punishes wrongdoing, or a karmic system—evolutionary 
e i s n s e s ur e r r  pu si n in e n ur  pr i i ies 
of human beings, which are ultimately rooted in the natural desire to 
procreate and pass on one’s genes.16

§4:  OBJECTIONS TO EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS
A. Responding to the Positive Arguments

Before considering potential arguments against evolutionary ethics, I 
wish to assess the validity of the evidences presented in favor of evolu-
tionary ethics. First, there is the assertion that evolutionary ethics does 
not require a metaphysical framework, and, in particular, does not need 
to posit the existence of moral facts. I grant that this is true of descrip-
tive evolutionary ethics, but it is not true of prescriptive evolutionary 
ethics. The instant that evolutionary ethics moves from attempts at 
explaining moral sentiments to explaining what our moral sentiments 
ought to be, the evolutionary ethicist must posit some reference point—
such as a moral fact—by which to judge what ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’ 
mean. Natural selection cannot, in and of itself, provide a foundation 
for morality. Something else besides ‘The behavior X is ultimately a 
product of natural selection’ must be posited before arriving at the con-
clusion ‘X is a moral good.’ This will be further explored in a moment, 
in the discussion on the ‘is-ought’ problem, and so I will refrain from 
further comments on this point until then. The second point made by 
evolutionary ethicists—namely, that the broad explanatory power of 

Cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s Universality Claims,” Developmental Review 
27 (2007), 443-500, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.04.001. 

14 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 
2016, 3. 

15 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion  s n   ug n i in, 
2006, 214. 

16 See Robert J. Richards, “Evolutionary Ethics: A Theory of Moral Realism,” 
in The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics, ed. Michael Ruse and 
Robert J. Richards (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 144-
145 and 148-149. 



55Issue XI ◊ Spring 2024

Against Evolutionary Ethics

evolutionary ethics is evidence in its favor—is only a half-truth. To use 
the example mentioned earlier, it is true that the commonalities in mor-
al codes across ages and cultures is a fact in need of explanation, and 
it is likewise true that evolutionary ethics provides a powerful solution 
to this problem. The answer of evolutionary ethics, however, is not the 
only plausible answer. For instance, quite independent of passing on 
one’s genes is the seemingly universal human goal of maximizing plea-
sure and minimizing pain.17 It should, therefore, be at least as plausible 
to say that all human beings act so as to maximize pleasure and min-
imize pain as it is to say that human beings act so as to stand a better 
chance of procreating. 
 On the question of moral compulsion, once again, evolutionary 
ethics, if true, would provide a strong answer to the question of why 
most individuals feel morally compelled to act one way as supposed 
to another. But the fact that one feels an instinctual compulsion to act 
in a particular way is by no means an indication that such a person 
morally ought to act that way. By what means does the evolutionary 
ethicist declare of any one instinct, ‘That is the moral instinct’? Take 
n in i i u   n s e se  in  e e  rgu en  i   i er 
n  n i us neig r  e ins in  rises up  n  s e un  e  

and batter the neighbor’s skull in. In the moment, such a thought feels 
right—the thought may even be pleasurable to the individual’s mind—
and yet the individual refrains from doing so, not from lack of instinc-
tual drive to commit the act, but from a sense of moral duty. Indeed, if 
this hypothetical individual were to follow through with their desires 
and commit their act of violence, most of society would be morally 
outraged, and condemn such an individual. It is true, one might argue, 
that one feels the moral instinct not to batter another’s skull in, and it 
is this which holds our hypothetical individual back—but this does not 
answer the question: Why ought our hypothetical individual to follow 
the ‘moral’ instinct rather than the ‘immoral’ instinct? Once again, the 
rejoinder may come that it isn’t a matter of ‘ought’—it is simply a fact 
that human beings generally, as a matter of their evolutionarily-in-
grained instincts, follow their ‘moral’ instincts rather than their ‘im-
moral’ ones.18 Let it be so—it yet remains a fact that some people do 
not follow their ‘moral’ instincts, and one must ask why such a person 
ought to be condemned. After all, society does not normally condemn 

17 See, for instance, Ruut Veenhoven, “How Universal Is Happiness?” in 
International Differences in Well-Being, ed. Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, 
and Daniel Kahneman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 328-350. 
See also Irwin Goldstein, “Pleasure and Pain: Unconditional, Intrinsic 
Values,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1, no. 2 (1989), 255-
276, https://doi.org/10.2307/2107959.

18 This, at least, is the argument made by Richards. See Robert J. Richards, 
op. cit., 144. 



56

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

individuals who act counter to the instincts of the majority. For exam-
ple, it is a fact that most human beings predominantly use their right 
hand when holding and using objects.19 Must society, then, condemn 
those who are left-handed, for not possessing the same instincts as the 
majority of their right-handed counterparts? The notion seems prepos-
terous—there appears to be, in this case at least, a clear and qualitative 
difference between a ‘moral instinct’ and an ‘amoral instinct.’ The 
theory of evolutionary ethics can explain why human beings feel moral 
compulsion—it may even serve to explain what the ‘qualitative differ-
ence’ between a moral feeling and an amoral feeling consists of—but 
to claim that the compulsion is a reason in itself to be ethical is a leap 
of logic. 

B. Unacceptable Moral Outcomes
Besides the weaknesses of the positive arguments in favor of evolu-
i n r  e i s  ere re in se er  enges e n  ese  e rs  

of these objections is that acting based on an evolutionary moral theory 
will lead to unacceptable moral outcomes. Now, the word ‘unaccept-
able,’ of course, carries a moral connotation, and, as such, this objec-
tion immediately runs the risk of circular reasoning. This, however, 
can be avoided: I will use ‘unacceptable moral outcomes’ to mean 
outcomes which the majority of individuals would feel to be morally 
wrong. Thus, ‘unacceptable’ refers not to morality itself, but to the 
moral sentiments of ‘normal’ individuals. 
 An interesting example of the unacceptability of evolution-
ary morals can be found in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, 
wherein Fyodor Karamazov and his son Dmitri are engaged in a violent 
competition to marry the same woman, named Grushenka. In the midst 

 is n i  I n r e s n  r r  n  
Dmitri’s half-brother—is asked to comment on the situation, to which 
he gives the somewhat apathetic reply of: “One reptile will devour 
the other. And serve them both right, too.”20 Here, in Ivan’s comment, 
it seems, is an application of the evolutionary moral theory which—I 
suspect—yields an outcome which most people would consider to be 
unacceptable. There is a common moral sentiment that individuals, 
especially individuals sharing familial ties, should strive to cooperate 

19 It should be noted, tangentially, for the sake of the argument, that 
handedness is largely a biological trait, and thus a product of natural 
selection. Thus, the instinct for right-handedness is analogous to the instinct 
for morality for the purposes of the present example. See Shan Shan Jing. 
“Hand Dominance: Nature, Nurture, and Relevance for Hand Surgeons,” 
Journal of Hand and Microsurgery 14, no. 1 (2022), 111-112, DOI: 
10.1055/s-0040-1713557. 

20 Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, tr. Constance Garnett, 
(New York, NY: The Lowell Press, 1880), 153.



57Issue XI ◊ Spring 2024

Against Evolutionary Ethics

n  e e ruis i  r  ne n er  r er n see  n i  
Nonetheless, on an evolutionary moral basis, where the greatest pos-
si e g  is  p ss n ne s genes  i  see s  i  pe i i n in 
this particular case is the inevitable—and perhaps morally favorable—
outcome. Cooperation in this situation, after all, is impossible: father 
and son cannot both ‘pass on their genes’ through Grushenka—and 
even if they did, that, too, would grate against typical moral sensibili-
ties. The question then arises: Who ought to marry Grushenka? On an 
evolutionary moral basis, the answer, as Ivan Karamazov suggests, is: 
Whichever one can physically dominate the other. From a ‘survival of 

e es  perspe i e  in  se ere r n  i ri us  -
pe e  repr u e  e er   e  s u  e e ne  pr re e  

is u e u i e  ene s u ni  s  e  s i  ser es  
‘strengthen’ the human gene pool. Thus, perhaps the evolutionary ethi-
cist can even declare, alongside Ivan, ‘Serve them both right’! 
 Of course, the case of The Brothers Karamazov is not the only 
conceivable instance in which evolutionary ethics may lead to unac-
ceptable outcomes. For instance, it seems plausible that one might be 
able to justify rape in certain cases, or slavery, on an evolutionary mor-
al basis. Both involve the subjugation of other human beings against 
their will—usually considered to be morally wrong—and yet both 
increase the moral offender’s chances of passing on their genes. That 
this, at times, happens to be to the detriment of other human beings is 
irrelevant to the question, since all that is important is that the individu-
al passes on their genes, irrespective of how the individual’s reproduc-
tive strategy affects the reproductive success of others.  
 Against this charge, the evolutionary ethicist may counter 
that each of these cases portrays evolutionary ethics in an unfair light. 
Returning to the case of Fyodor and Dmitri, it may be argued that 
there is, in fact, no correct answer to the question of who should marry 
Grushenka. As the situation is both morally ambiguous and morally 
outrageous from the outset, it would seem that any moral theory would 
struggle to produce a morally ‘acceptable’ outcome, and so to attack 
evolutionary ethics’s failure in this case is essentially ‘hitting below 
the belt.’ This argument, however, fails to recognize that—while the 
situation is morally ambiguous and morally outrageous—yet there are 
possible resolutions to the problem, as long as the summum bonum 
is not passing on one’s genes. For instance, Fyodor and Dmitri might 
settle their contest with a game of chess to avoid bloodshed, or they 

ig  ppe    ir  p r   e p e  is uss eir i u ies r  
perhaps best of all, Fyodor and Dmitri might allow Grushenka herself 



58

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

to choose between the two of them.21 While, from an evolutionary per-
spe i e  n i  see s  e e n  p ssi e p i n  ere re i e 
alternatives from other moral theories, and so the failure of evolution-
ary ethics in this case is a legitimate challenge to the theory.

All in all, however, the case of The Brothers Karamazov is a 
i n  e p e n  su  ses  i  e   ur  re r re  n  s  

likely never reach the point showcased in Dostoyevsky’s novel. The 
cases of rape and slavery, however, are much more serious, as they are 
certainly not hypothetical. 

Against the charge that evolutionary ethics cannot address the 
moral wrongs of rape or slavery, the evolutionary ethicist may point 
out that human beings have evolved to be a social species, and as such, 
an evolutionary moral theory must take this into consideration.22 Seen 

us r   s ie  perspe i e  s ie  s  e ene s s  en 
human beings cooperate, rather than forcibly subdue one another. After 

 s i  gr ups i  in r gr up n i  re ess i e  n s i  
gr ups i u  su  n i   sur i e n  p ss n eir genes  is is 
also to say nothing of potential societal sanctions which may be levied 
against those considered to be morally aberrant, thus making it more 
i u  r en ing in i i u s  p ss n eir genes in e u ure  

Therefore, while on an individual level, it would seem that there are 
certain cases when evolutionary ethics yields ‘unacceptable’ moral 
outcomes, on the societal level such problems are avoided.
 This counter-objection, however, forgets that natural selec-
tion—the underlying process which provides the basis for evolutionary 
ethics’ summum bonum—should theoretically select for individuals 

se r  sen i en s re pri ri  in ine   eir n ene  
Even from a societal perspective, natural selection will favor individu-
als who seek their own individual good, rather than the good of society. 

21 Someone may comment that this is actually the evolutionarily preferable 
outcome. I will simply observe that I see little evolutionary reason for 
either male party to concede defeat to the other simply on the basis of the 
female’s preference. Furthermore, while mating competitions in nature are, 
of course, for the purpose of winning the right to pass on one’s genes with 
a female or a group of females, I can think of few if any instances in which 
the female herself decides the contest. Even if such an instance did occur in 
nature, however, it remains to be seen that this is the ‘right’ way to settle a 
dispute, as opposed to merely ‘a’ way.   

22 It should be noted that there are two schools of thought with regards to 
e u i n r  i g  e rs  s  in ins  n ur  se e i n 
operates predominantly on the individual level, while the second holds 
that natural selection operates predominantly on the group level. This, of 
course, creates two schools of evolutionary ethical thought. The anticipated 
objection here would presumably come from a proponent of the latter 
school of thought. See Michael Klenk, op. cit., 83-84. 



59Issue XI ◊ Spring 2024

Against Evolutionary Ethics

nsi er  r ins n e   in i i u s in s ie  e rs  in i i u  
seeks the wellbeing of society only insofar as increasing societal well-
being increases their own reproductive success. The second individual 
seeks the welfare of society even at their own reproductive expense. 
Because the individual who seeks their own reproductive success will 
have a greater chance of passing on their genes than the individual who 
is i ing  s ri e e se es r e s e  eir e  s ie  
members, natural selection will select for the former type of individual 
over the later type. Seeing as those moral sentiments which are favored 

 n ur  se e i n re s   e ni i n s r egi  se e e  
for their ability to promote the individual’s procreative success, and as 
procreative success is the supreme ethical goal for any individual on 
the theory of evolutionary ethics, it stands to reason that individuals 
ought not to consider societal welfare in their moral decision-making if 
it is to their reproductive disadvantage. Thus, the evolutionary ethicist 

 ppr e  e r pis s ng s e r pis  n  i  su ien  
discreetness, so as to not attract the reproach of society—as well as 
the slaveholder—so long as the slaveholder holds their slaves with the 
approval of their society.
 But all of this, the evolutionary ethicist might maintain, pre-
supposes that the moral sentiments of individuals are inclined toward 
such acts as rape and slaveholding. Yet moral sentiments, as they are 
observed in actuality, are not so inclined—rape and slaveholding are 
considered to be morally unacceptable, after all—which would seem 
to undermine the previous counter-argument.  All that this fact shows, 
however, is that the moral sentiments of human beings—whether or not 
they are products of natural selection—are at least not solely oriented 
toward the alleged summum bonum of passing on one’s genes. 
 A second potential objection to the assertion that evolution-
ary ethics yields unacceptable moral outcomes is that, while there are 
select occasions in which morally unacceptable acts, such as rape or 
slaveholding, might be condoned on an evolutionary moral theory, ac-
i ns su  s ese re  in gener  n n ene i  r e in i i u  r 

the sake of simplicity, let us only consider the case of rape as it pertains 
to this line of argument. While in certain circumstances a rapist may 
‘get away’ with their act without any societal consequences, this is not 
often the case—more often than not, the rapist is caught and punished. 
Thus, one ought not to commit the act of rape, as the future conse-
uen es  su  n  re re i e   e r u  n ene i  

to the individual. Another similar, though somewhat distinct, form of 
this argument might be to take a more Kantian route: While rape may 
ene  ne p r i u r in i i u   ne p r i u r en  in i e  i  
 u n eings s    r pe ne n er ene er e  se  e 

result would be a net detriment to the species. Thus, one ought not to 



60

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

commit the act of rape, because of the moral ‘non-universalizability’ of 
the act.23 
 These two objections, however, can be dealt with simulta-
neously. In both cases, the argument shifts the focus away from the 
in i i u s ene   s ie  r e spe ies  e ri en  u  n  
grounds does the evolutionary ethicist make such a move? It has 
already been established that nature selects for self-concerned indi-
viduals over individuals who are not self-concerned.  Thus, in the 
moment of moral decision—that is, when the individual must consider 
for themselves whether or not an action which they are to undertake is 
morally right or morally wrong—the individual must not be concerned 
about the societal consequences of their decision, or about the hypo-
thetical scenario of all human beings acting as they are acting. Rather, 
the individual must judge for themself, in their particular moment and 
in their particular circumstance, whether or not their action will serve 
to facilitate the passing on of their genes or not. If so, then—irrespec-
tive of the means—that action is good. If it be by rape, then by rape; if 
by marriage, then by marriage. On an evolutionary moral basis, the two 
would appear to be morally indistinguishable. 

C. The Is-Ought Problem24

 The second attack against the theory of evolutionary ethics is 
the ‘is-ought’ problem, as made famous by David Hume.25 The prob-
lem involves the question of what kind of argument would be required 
to be able to conclude that passing on one’s genes is, in fact, the 
summum bonum. It is true that human beings, generally speaking, pass 
on their genes and desire to do so—and, moreover, that if all human 
beings ceased to pass on their genes, then the human species would 
cease to exist. But this does not answer the question of why one ought 
to pass on their genes. Why, after all, should the cessation of human 
existence be considered a moral wrong? One may multiply facts about 
what is the case ad nauseum—for instance, one may point out that 
human beings have a natural instinct to pass on their genes and pre-
serve the existence of the species. This, however, still does not answer 
the challenge. One need only ask: But why ought human beings to act 

23 The logic is paraphrased in part from Kant’s Categorical Imperative. See 
e rs  se i n  n s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. 

24 It may be noticed that I choose to address the more general ‘is-ought’ 
pr e  r er n e re spe i  n ur is i   s pu  r r  
most famously by G. E. Moore. This is because several—and, in my 
opinion, persuasive—counter-arguments have been made against the 
naturalistic fallacy. See, for instance, Oliver Curry, “Who’s Afraid of the 
Naturalistic Fallacy?” Evolutionary Psychology 4, no. 1 (2006), https://doi.
org/10.1177/147470490600400120. 

25 See David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature; Book III, Chapter I.



61Issue XI ◊ Spring 2024

Against Evolutionary Ethics

based on their natural instincts? As philosopher William FitzPatrick 
points out: “Regardless of why one has a given [instinct], the question 
for a rational agent is always: is it right for me to exercise it, or should 
I instead renounce and resist it as far as I am able?”26 There is no 
biological fact for the evolutionary ethicist to fall back upon which can 
justify the idea that human beings ought to consider passing on their 
genes as the greatest possible good.

Perhaps the strongest reply available to the evolutionary ethi-
cist is to appeal to teleology.27 While it may be true that no biological 
fact can justify the summum bonum of passing on one’s genes, the 
evolutionary ethicist may maintain that, from a biological perspec-
tive, the purpose of human life is survival and genetic propagation. 
As Richard Dawkins once famously put it: “We are machines built by 
DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. That 
is exactly what we are here for… It is every living object’s sole reason 
for living.”28 The argument may now run as follows29: For any thing 
with a given purpose, the ‘goodness’ of that thing consists in its accom-
plishing that purpose. For example, if the purpose of a knife is to cut, 
then the ‘goodness’ of the knife consists in its ability to cut. A knife 
that cuts well is a ‘good’ knife, whereas a knife which does not cut well 
is a ‘bad’ knife. Likewise, for all living things: If the purpose of all 
living things is to pass on their genes, then the ‘goodness’ of a living 
thing consists in its ability to pass on its genes—and, as human beings 
are living things, then the ‘goodness’ of human beings also consists in 
their ability to pass on their genes. As all human actions may thus be 
measured against this ultimate human goodness, it may thus be safely 
asserted that the summum bonum is to pass on one’s genes. In this way, 
by positing the idea of a biological ‘purpose for life,’ the evolutionary 
ethicist may diffuse the is-ought problem.  

There are three problems with this defense. First, it seems 
arbitrary to choose ‘passing on one’s genes’ as the purpose for the 
existence of living things. On a biological level, after all, reproduction 
is merely one of a plethora of functions performed by any living thing. 
As there is nothing inherently value-laden about reproduction, one 
may justly ask: Why choose ‘passing on one’s genes’ as the essential 
life-purpose, rather than some other life function? The evolutionary 

26 William FitzPatrick, op. cit. 
27 This teleological appeal is a common method of overcoming the is-ought 

problem, perhaps most famously espoused and defended by Alasdair 
MacIntyre in his 1981 book After Virtue (University of Notre Dame Press). 

28 Richard Dawkins, “The Ultraviolet Garden,” Royal Institute Christmas 
Lecture, No. 4 (1991).

29 This argument is largely derived from Book I of Aristotle’s Nicomachean 
Ethics. 



62

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

ethicist may respond that reproduction, as the mechanism by which 
natural selection operates, constitutes the most essential life-function, 
and as such, opting for ‘reproductive success’ or ‘passing on one’s 
genes’ as the summum bonum is not arbitrary. This, too, however, has 
a problem: It is not a priori obvious that passing on one’s genes—even 
from a biological perspective—constitutes the most essential life-func-
tion. For instance, by the same line of argumentation presented above, 
it could be argued that ‘survival’ is the teleological aim of humanity 
and all living things—and that as such, the ‘goodness’ of human beings 
consists in their capacity to survive. On what grounds does the evolu-
tionary ethicist claim that reproduction is more essential than survival? 
Without resorting to some external value system, it seems an impos-
sible task for the evolutionary ethicist to non-arbitrarily determine 
whether or not reproduction—or any other life-function—is ‘most 
essential.’ Absent a non-arbitrary purpose for humanity, the is-ought 
problem remains for the evolutionary ethicist.

The second problem with the teleological defense for evo-
lutionary ethics stems from the source of this teleology. It may be 
asked: From whence does the evolutionary ethicist derive the notion of 
purpose? One can speak about the purpose of a knife because the knife 
was made by some individual who designed the knife for the intended 
purpose of cutting. Indeed, apart from some intention or design on the 
part of an individual, a thing cannot be thought of as having a purpose. 
A body of water, for instance, cannot be thought of as existing for the 
purpose of swimming in, unless some individual had prepared that 
body of water with that purpose in mind. But if—as most evolutionary 
biologists maintain—living things were not made, but are the products 
of the ‘blind forces’ of natural selection, then the evolutionary ethicist 

us  n  s e er s ur e r e purp se  u n eings  ne 
possible means of doing this might be to understand the purpose of an 
individual as existing not within the individual, but in a community 
of individuals.30 Consider that a single cell has no purpose, unless it is 
connected to a community of similar cells into an organ—say, a heart. 
But the heart itself has no purpose, unless it likewise is connected to 
a community of organs in an organism, for the purpose of facilitating 
genetic propagation. But even genetic propagation is itself impossible 
apart from a community of organisms—at least, for sexually repro-
ducing organisms, such as human beings. Thus, one might still, in this 

ier r   purp ses  n   u si r ns en en  s ur e r e purp se 
 u n e is en e  is rgu en  e er  see s  n e pr -

tical function’ with ‘teleological purpose.’ The two are entirely distinct. 

30 This argument is put forward by Yoshimi Kawade, “On the Nature of the 
Subjectivity of Living Things,” Biosemiotics 2 (2009), 205-220, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12304-009-9041-9. 



63Issue XI ◊ Spring 2024

Against Evolutionary Ethics

A heart, it is true, may be practically functionless absent the rest of the 
organism, but this does not necessarily mean that it is teleologically 
purposeless. Likewise, the heart may be teleologically purposeless, and 
yet serve a practical function. This attempt too, then, fails to establish 
reproduction as a real teleological end capable of overcoming the is-
ought problem. 

e ir  n  n  pr e  i  p si ing p ssing n ne s 
genes’ as a teleological end for humanity is that the ‘ought’ which such 
a teleology produces is an ‘ought of adequacy,’ not a ‘moral ought.’31 
Returning to the example of the knife: It is true that the ‘goodness’ of 
the knife consists in its capacity to cut, and so one ‘ought’ to use the 
knife for cutting. It would be strange, however, if this ‘ought’ were 
construed to be a moral ‘ought’—as though cutting into something 
with a knife was a moral good. The same argument can be applied 
to human beings: It may be true that the biological ‘goodness’ of a 
human being consists in their capacity to reproduce, and so, perhaps, 
one ‘ought’ to use one’s body for that purpose. This, ‘ought,’ however, 
like the previous ‘ought,’ is merely an ought of adequacy. It would be 
strange, merely on this basis, if one were to suggest that reproduction 
was a moral good.

Here the evolutionary ethicist might object that there is—at 
least, with regards to human beings—no distinction between an ‘ought 
of adequacy’ and a ‘moral ought.’ In other words, it may be that what 
is called an ‘ought of adequacy’ for other things is what human beings 
consider a ‘moral ought’ in themselves. Hence, there appears to be 
an essential difference between the statements ‘A knife ought to cut,’ 
and ‘A human ought to reproduce,’ simply because the latter involves 
a human being. This argument, however, does not consider that all 
‘ought’ statements refer implicitly to human beings. There is no ‘ought’ 
inherent in a knife, or in any other object, if that object bears no rela-
tionship to a human being. This is because, by nature, the concept of 
‘ought’—whether it be an ought of adequacy, or a moral ought—exists 
only in tandem with an agent possessing a will. Furthermore, the ought 
of adequacy and the moral ought are entirely distinguishable in this 
‘willing agent,’ so that the ought of adequacy cannot be equated with 
the moral ought. For example, a human being may use a knife to cut 

rr s  r e   use e s e ni e  u  u n ngers   -
er people’s hands. Both situations involve the ought of adequacy—in 
fact, both involve the ‘good’ of the knife—but only the latter situation 
in es  r  ug   is  ne ug  n   u  u n ngers  
even if ‘cutting’ is the ‘good’ of the knife. Here the ought of adequacy 

31 I develop this argument from Shalina Stilley, “Natural Law Theory and the 
‘Is’--‘Ought’ Problem: A Critique of Four Solutions.” Dissertations (2009-) 
(2010), Paper 57, https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/57/.



64

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

and the moral ought are neatly distinguished for the human being. But 
if the ought of adequacy and the moral ought can be so distinguished, 
then it cannot be argued that the ought of adequacy produced by the 
evolutionary ethicist’s teleological appeal is equivalent to a moral 
ought. It can thus be seen that—in light of the three problems high-
lighted here—the theory of evolutionary ethics cannot demonstrate that 
reproduction constitutes a meaningful teleological end for humanity. 
Without this teleology, the is-ought problem remains for evolutionary 
ethics to solve. Satisfying answers are not forthcoming. 

§5:  CONCLUSION
 Ultimately, the lack of strong evidence in favor of the evolu-
tionary ethical viewpoint, as well as its inability to reasonably resolve 
either the ‘unacceptable’ moral outcomes of its theory or the is-ought 
pr e  ren ers i  n i p ssi e e r   us i  supp r  In  
candidness, the evolutionary moral perspective is an overreach of the 
natural sciences into the ethical sphere. Insofar as there is real content 
in e r  r i  e n ur  s ien es e n  p e in e e   
morals. It is the role of the natural sciences to describe behavior, and 
to explain the causal connections between natural phenomena, not to 
distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ 
 Of course, the evolutionary ethicist may, in response to all of 
the arguments here presented, simply reply that morality does not exist 
anyway—that is, they may adopt the metaethical view that the biolog-
ical theory of evolution disposes of the possibility of morality in the 

rs  p e  is p per  e er  s n  s ug   ress su  n-
cerns, and they must be dealt with separately.
 With regards to the descriptive aspect of evolutionary ethics 

en i ne  pre i us  su   e   s u   pr e rui u  s 
long as the distinction between ‘moral sentiment’ and ‘morality’ is 
maintained. Let descriptive evolutionary ethics demonstrate that my 
aversion to lying is the result of natural selection. The question of why 
lying is actually wrong, apart from my—or anyone else’s—believing it 
to be so, remains. 



65Issue XI ◊ Spring 2024

Against Evolutionary Ethics

REFERENCES
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, tr. Martin Oswald (London: 

Library of Liberal Arts, 1999).
Atkins, Peter. “The Limitless Power of Science,” in Nature’s
Imagination: The Frontiers of Scientific Vision, ed. John 

Cornwell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 122-132. 
Curry, Oliver. “Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fal-

lacy?” Evolutionary Psychology 4, no. 1 (2006). https://doi.
org/10.1177/147470490600400120.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Hough-
n i in  200  

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 2016. 

Dawkins, Richard. “The Ultraviolet Garden.” Royal Institute 
Christmas Lecture, no. 4 (1991).

De Waal, Frans B. M, et al. “Evolved Morality: The Biology 
and Philosophy of Human Conscience.” Behavior 151 (2014): 137-
141. 

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov, tr. Con-
stance Garnett, (New York, NY: The Lowell Press, 1880).

FitzPatrick, William. “Morality and Evolutionary Biology.” 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021), ed. Edward N. Zalta. 
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/morality-biology/. 

Gibbs, John C., et al. “Moral Judgment Development 
Across Cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s Universality Claims.” De-
velopmental Review 27 (2007): 443-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dr.2007.04.001. 

Goldstein, Irwin. “Pleasure and Pain: Unconditional, Intrin-
sic Values.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1, no. 2 
(1989): 255-276. https://doi.org/10.2307/2107959.

Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand De-
sign. New York, NY: Bantam Publishing, 2012.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Penguin 
Classics, 1986.

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understand-
ing, ed. Stephen Buckle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 
2007). 



66

Dianoia: The Undergraduate Philosophy Journal of Boston College

Jing, Shan Shan. “Hand Dominance: Nature, Nurture, and 
Relevance for Hand Surgeons,” Journal of Hand and Microsurgery 
14, no. 1 (2022): 111-112. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713557.

Kawade, Yoshimi. “On the Nature of the Subjectivity of Liv-
ing Things.” Biosemiotics 2 (2009): 205-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12304-009-9041-9. 

Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 
3rd Edition, tr. James W. Ellington (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett 
Publishing, 1993). 

Klenk, Michael. “Evolutionary Ethics,” in Introduction to 
Philosophy: Ethics, ed. George Matthews and Christina Hendricks 
(Montreal, QC, Canada: Rebus Press, 2020), 76-89. 

Krebs, Dennis L. “Morality: An Evolutionary Account.” Per-
spectives on Psychological Science 3, no. 3 (2008): 149-172. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00072.x. 

MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: Universi-
ty of Notre Dame Press, 1981.

Richards, Robert J. “Evolutionary Ethics: A Theory of Moral 
Realism,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics, ed. 
Michael Ruse and Robert J. Richards (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2017), 143-157. 

Schroeder, Doris. “Evolutionary Ethics.” Internet Encyclope-
dia of Philosophy. Accessed 15 Nov 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/evol-
eth/#H2. 

Stilley, Shalina. “Natural Law Theory and the ‘Is’--‘Ought’ 
Problem: A Critique of Four Solutions.” Dissertations (2009-) 
(2010), Paper 57. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_
mu/57/.

Teehan, John, and Christopher diCarlo. “On the Naturalistic 
Fallacy: A Conceptual Basis for Evolutionary Ethics.” Evolutionary 
Psychology 2, no. 1 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704904002
00108. 

Veenhoven, Ruut. “How Universal Is Happiness?” in Inter-
national Differences in Well-Being, ed. Ed Diener, John F. Helliwell, 
and Daniel Kahneman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 
328-350.

Wilson, E. O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, 
MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. 


