Skip to main content

Can evolutionary theory provide evidence against psychological hedonism?

Buy Article:

$18.20 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Sober and Wilson (1998) argue (1) that neither psychological evidence nor philosophical arguments provide grounds for rejecting psychological hedonism, but (2) evolution by natural selection is unlikely to have led to such a single source of motivation. In order to turn their piecemeal discussion of (1) into a serious argument, Sober and Wilson need a general procedure for mapping alternative accounts of motivation into egoistic hedonistic accounts. That is the only way to demonstrate that there will always be an available hedonistic account no matter what the psychological evidence. But such a general procedure, if available, must block their argument for (2). So, the more persuasive the case for (1), the less persuasive the case for (2).
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
No Metrics

Document Type: Review Article

Affiliations: Department of Philosophy, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540.

Publication date: 2000-01-01

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more