Debunker's Argumentative Analysis

Good Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Debunking Ethical Realism

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages

    FitzPatrick argues that such forces do not stand in the way of our grasping moral facts, and in doing so sketches his own view of realism. Foremost in his view is that we are capable of grasping moral truths. It is this grasp that debunking arguments contend is impossible, whether because our mental capacities and moral beliefs are distorted by evolution or by something else. But FitzPatrick says that evolution does not necessarily distort our capacity to grasp moral reality. It is reasonable, he says, to assume that we evolved mechanisms (such as cooperation) that both allow us to live longer and allow us to form a correct understanding of morality (17-18).…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He does not argue that torture should be used casually, rather his argument stems from the premise that nations should not be so quick to ban torture in every single circumstance. His primary rhetorical strategy is to use hypothetical extremes to prove his point, in addition, he also appeals to emotion to evoke a sense towards Utilitarianism to justify torture in certain cases. His primary downfall in his argument was that many of his hypothetical have yet to be seen in real life, in light of this, it may delegitimize his argument in certain people’s…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    There are more cases regarding those whose desires do not coincide with their self-interest and these contradict the theory of psychological egoism. In cases where a psychological egoists would claim that everyone would expect even just a little bit of benefit, does not take into account pessimistic people or people who know that the action will not benefit them at all (Shafer-Landau, 2015). Using sincere love as an example, the claim that our actions are motivated our strongest desire would not hold up because our self-interested desires would not be our priority; rather, you would want the other person to be happy even if it caused you pain (Jorati, 2014). There are times that people go after their own self-interest, however if they did it all the time, there would be no sense of morality. Even Shafer Landau (2015) states “If all we can do is look out for Number One, then there is little point in demanding we do otherwise.” (pg.104).…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One, instead, should be able to criticize the beliefs of others. James is correct in claiming that one should use their will when forming certain beliefs; but contrary to what he thinks, this process does not lead to the maximization of true beliefs. Preconceptions heavily influence what one wills to believe. If these preconceptions are tainted by false knowledge, formation of new true beliefs becomes difficult. James’ theory would be effective at creating many new beliefs but his process does not emphasize the creation of true beliefs, as he desires.…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The problem here is that we don’t have, Street says, an account for how the evolution pushed us towards the independent moral truths because the best scientific attempts to explain how the evolutionary past influenced our moral judgments do not make any reference to the moral truths. The observation that the moral truth is explanatory irrelevant is not novel, it was made first by Gilbert Harman (see also (Gibbard 1990, ch6) ). Street notes that there is, in fact, an explanation that refers to moral truths (she calls in the ‘tracking account’), but there exists a better explanation that does not do so. (Street 2006, sec. 6).…

    • 1082 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong. It does a better job trying to disprove other theories than actually doing anything to prove its own theory. On the other side, nihilism uses error theory and different arguments to attempt to prove its merits. Objectivism is basically the exact opposite of nihilism, which says that there are no true moral claims. Objectivism is a strong proponent of saying that some moral claims can be true, but it is never specific in its claims of what these “some” cases really are.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    (Railton 795) The Pyrrhonian model is much more plausible attempt at defining moral skepticism because unique individuals possess to distinct worldviews. Arguments arise because people can’t reach compromises on various issues. By using Pyrrhoian skepticism the individuals defines what is moral using their own judgments. People should not be dictated by what they are told is right and just because it is quite plausible that they are being deceived. While one cannot ever assume that any moral claim is a truth, modest justification can be provided by consideration of contrast classes.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Human beings are rational creatures that would intensitivity defend themselves. A Human Being would have no reason to place tolerance toward someone else 's morals over their own safety. For example society deems it immoral to kill other people but will deem it as an understandable action if it was done to protect oneself. The undermining of moral confidence that relativism can cause serves only to ensure that people do not approach a situation believing that they are morally superior but rather approach it with an open mind. Moreover, it is not clear people are less motivated about non-universal values beliefs.…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A statement of morality like this requires an explanation. Greene partially agrees with me. He offers forth the idea that impartiality is the more morally rational thing to do, but chases it with the caveat that it would not be rational to try and convince our culture that they should stop behaving as they do (Sommers, 300-301). That is to try to convince them that it is not the…

    • 1145 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays