Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The second premise of the ergon argument is incompatible ... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The second premise of the ergon argument is incompatible with evolutionary biology

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's ergon argument grounds the 'fully developed human form' in functional teleology, not morphological fixity or species essentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Evolutionary biology itself employs functional explanations (e.g., adaptations) that presuppose normative standards of proper functioning for organisms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ruth Millikan's teleosemantic framework shows that biological proper functions ground normative 'fullness' without requiring fixed essences, vindicating Aristotelian teleology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Philippa Foot's naturalistic ethics in 'Natural Goodness' demonstrates that evolutionary organisms have evaluable life-form norms independent of fixed essences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If neo-Aristotelian naturalism can derive 'fully developed form' from species-typical flourishing patterns, the objection that evolution dissolves such norms loses its force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The second premise asserts that exercise of reason is both the key structural property of human life and the realization of the fully developed human form
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No sense can be made of the notion of a 'fully developed human form' in evolutionary terms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural TheologyVirtue Ethics

    Related

    Aristotle's ergon argument grounds the 'fully developed human form' in functiona...Evolutionary biology itself employs functional explanations (e.g., adaptations) ...If neo-Aristotelian naturalism can derive 'fully developed form' from species-ty...No sense can be made of the notion of a 'fully developed human form' in evolutio...
    +3 moreShow less
    Philippa Foot's naturalistic ethics in 'Natural Goodness' demonstrates that evol...Ruth Millikan's teleosemantic framework shows that biological proper functions g...The second premise asserts that exercise of reason is both the key structural pr...

    Similar

    The claim that evolutionary theory is incompatible with divine guidanc...71%The atheist argument against theistic evolution depends on the claim t...69%Street's evolutionary debunking argument against moral realism depends...69%There is no simple connection between evolutionary theory and the phil...69%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: human-nature
    View source passageHide passage
    In the light of the discussion so far, it ought to be clear that, as it stands, the second premise of this argument is incompatible with the evolutionary biology of species. It asserts that the exercise of reason is not only the key structural property of human life, but also the realization of the fully developed human form. No sense can be made of this latter notion in evolutionary terms. Nevertheless, a series of prominent contemporary ethicists—Alasdair MacIntyre (1999), Rosalind Hursthouse
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit