What question did this study set out to answer?

The research aims to resolve the is-ought problem by integrating critical rationalism with evolutionary theory.

April 14, 2026Open Access

Problem based on Critical Rationalism and Evolutionary Theory

Key Points

The research aims to resolve the is-ought problem by integrating critical rationalism with evolutionary theory.
Analyzing traditional impossibility proofs related to the is-ought problem
Examining the Quine-Duhem thesis in the context of ethical derivations
Employing evolutionary theory to define ultimate goals as lineage fitness
Proposes that ought-statements are grounded in empirical observations rather than logical derivations
Establishes that ultimate goals are determined by evolutionary lineage fitness
Creates an ethical framework that is open to criticism and not dogmatically immune

Abstract

This paper solves the is-ought problem based on critical rationalism, the Quine-Duhem thesis, and evolutionary theory. Traditional impossibility proofs and the so-called 'naturalistic fallacy' rest on concepts that are dogmatically immunized and circular in the critical-rationalist sense: they lack empirical foundation and demand isolated derivations. Ought-statements are goal-relative claims about means-end relations of real subjects with instrumental or ultimate goals. The ultimate goal cannot be derived logically, but must be determined empirically, and it cannot be freely chosen, since this would presuppose a libertarian free will, an assumption this paper rejects. Evolutionary theory identifies it as lineage fitness, the teleonomic goal of living systems to which all known goals are instrumentally subordinate. This yields a cognitivist, consequentialist, epistemically objective ethics whose foundations and norms are not immunized against criticism. Eine Deutsche Version kann hier gefunden werden: https://philpapers.org/rec/DELDLD-13

Problem based on Critical Rationalism and Evolutionary Theory

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study