Abstract

Herbert Spencer can be regarded as the precursor of current scientists and moral philosophers who try to naturalize ethics by providing for it biological and/or psychological foundations. Both Spencer and his contemporary followers are, however, faced with the problem whether naturalistic ethics is capable of a logically correct justification. The aim of this paper is to discuss this metaethical problem. I examine first different interpretations of Spencer's thought, and I maintain that on the basis of none of these interpretations Spencer commits a logical fallacy in a narrow sense. Rather, the British philosopher and contemporary naturalistic ethicists commit an epistemological naturalistic fallacy consisting in connecting the normativity of justification to the descriptivity of explanation. In the last part of the paper I therefore conduct a critical discussion of the role that the reliabilist perspective plays in the current context of naturalized moral epistemology