The paper starts with a distinction between kinds of description that can be proposed for a populational dynamics, including a ‘Darwinian’ description, in terms of variation, inheritance and differential fitness, engaging the entities that make up the relevant population. It follows with a categorization of different kinds of cultural populations and an investigation of the most general conditions that have to be fulfilled for an evolutionary and Darwinian dynamics to take place in those populations, especially in the population comprised by (...) the cultural traits themselves. We make salient some approaches to the evolution in the human lineage, such as dual inheritance theory and memetics, that place cultural evolution at the center of their scenarios. In this way, those approaches contribute to the development of a general theory of cultural evolution, and we compare them, in this respect, with other approaches. Those confrontations grant also illustrations of the analogies between biological evolution and cultural evolution, as well as failures in the analogy. (shrink)

The theory of evolution sparked a series of questions about the origins of moral judgments and the underpinning principles. In particular, it reinforced the debate about moral nativism. In this paper we scrutinize two research programs that advocate respectively the existence of an innate ability to judge morally and a predisposition to moralize behaviors with certain contents. The best-known version of moral nativism argues for the existence of a moral grammar, by analogy with the Chomskyan model of principles and parameters (...) in linguistics. The second program argues for the existence of a moral domain, i.e., of a small set of moral intuitions found in all societies. We critically evaluate the arguments commonly used to ground both theories: ease of learning even in face of poverty of stimulus; the principle of double effect; the pre-established order of moral development in individuals; universality and antiquity of the moral phenomenon. We are concerned with how they fare at relevant contemporary research in Cognitive Science and meet constructivist arguments proposed by Jesse Prinz and Kim Sterelny, among others. We found out that there is little evidence that our moral judgments follow the model of principles and parameters, although it can be useful as a heuristic device for guiding future research. At the same time, ease of learning suggests that the human brain is somehow prepared to learn moral rules and that the types of rule we adopt are constrained by our biology. Furthermore, the fact that the capacity to make moral judgments develops according to a similar schedule in different cultures indicates that it is an endogenous one. Although it depends, for sure, on the existence of culture, it is not reducible to cultural phenomena. Based on a distinction made by Darwin between social instincts and intellectual powers we argue that thinking in a normative way requires being aware of the grounds of our beliefs and actions, and this implies self-consciousness. It is difficult to discern if morality is an adaptation or just a spandrel. Even if it might have emerged as a side effect in our evolutionary history, it might have undergone subsequent adaptive structural changes, possibly because of interactions with cultural dynamics. (shrink)