The evolutionary story suggests that our moral beliefs evolved organically to select for what would keep a community alive. That our morals do not approach an objective truth, but are merely adaptively fit. This lends to an argument that since we are not evolved to know the truth, our morals may be totally invalid, and so we cannot rationally believe them.
This argument that we cannot trust our morals is flawed. The debunker claims that since evolution selects for fitness rather than moral truth, we cannot trust our moral beliefs to be objective, and that we must require a Good Reason to back up all our moral beliefs. This not only knocks out moral realism, or at least leaves it crippled and ineffective, but also leads down the road to pure …show more content…
As much as debunkers claim that evolution is not a Good Reason to believe in moral positions, it is also not a Good Reason to disbelieve them either. Who is to say that true moral beliefs are not what is most fit? Would it not make sense for objective morality to have characteristics that would aid in the survival of a community? Sure, evolution is bound to get off track a little bit, but here we must focus on degrees of reason. We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very …show more content…
She states that if one is to properly persuade anyone, they must do so from a close proximity to their opposition’s beliefs. A small correction to one belief set is still supported by accepting truth, whereas a major paradigm shift is less likely to hold up in from the opposition’s standpoint. This seems to be a pretty basic debate strategy, but suggests a fundamental flaw in the current argumentative tactics. It seems easy to pick a topic wildly different from your own, and shoot holes in it from your perspective, but those on the other side may not accept the arguments that do so, and may fire back in kind, leaving both parties going nowhere, but when one approaches from the same viewpoint, and carefully audits a path, suggesting small adjustments, it is a lot easier to come to a consensus. Here is the major problem with the evolutionary debunkers. They come to realism from an antagonistic perspective, not accepting any functional objective system, and trying to shoot down the framework they are working within rather than trying to improve upon it. An evolutionary theorist needs to be building up a theory that fits well within the evolutionary story rather than trying to break down a foundation by applying their new
This argument that we cannot trust our morals is flawed. The debunker claims that since evolution selects for fitness rather than moral truth, we cannot trust our moral beliefs to be objective, and that we must require a Good Reason to back up all our moral beliefs. This not only knocks out moral realism, or at least leaves it crippled and ineffective, but also leads down the road to pure …show more content…
As much as debunkers claim that evolution is not a Good Reason to believe in moral positions, it is also not a Good Reason to disbelieve them either. Who is to say that true moral beliefs are not what is most fit? Would it not make sense for objective morality to have characteristics that would aid in the survival of a community? Sure, evolution is bound to get off track a little bit, but here we must focus on degrees of reason. We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very …show more content…
She states that if one is to properly persuade anyone, they must do so from a close proximity to their opposition’s beliefs. A small correction to one belief set is still supported by accepting truth, whereas a major paradigm shift is less likely to hold up in from the opposition’s standpoint. This seems to be a pretty basic debate strategy, but suggests a fundamental flaw in the current argumentative tactics. It seems easy to pick a topic wildly different from your own, and shoot holes in it from your perspective, but those on the other side may not accept the arguments that do so, and may fire back in kind, leaving both parties going nowhere, but when one approaches from the same viewpoint, and carefully audits a path, suggesting small adjustments, it is a lot easier to come to a consensus. Here is the major problem with the evolutionary debunkers. They come to realism from an antagonistic perspective, not accepting any functional objective system, and trying to shoot down the framework they are working within rather than trying to improve upon it. An evolutionary theorist needs to be building up a theory that fits well within the evolutionary story rather than trying to break down a foundation by applying their new