2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
Morality is that which is selected for.
It might be true that our some of our moral beliefs were selected for by Darwinian forces, but this does not really grasp at what moral realists are looking for. Take an evaluative attitude such as:
It is entirely plausible that we believe this because it would have been, from the standpoint of survival, beneficial. But then take another commonly held belief:
Again, it might be useful to believe this because incestuous sex can produce offspring with genetic defects, and that offspring will have a lower chance of survival. But we can actually kind of undermine this belief. What we think is objectionable about murder is that it is an unjustified killing, most people seem to think there are circumstances in which killing is justifiable, but in almost no circumstances do people think it is morally permissible to kill for fun or because you just hated the person. Now take incest; imagine a brother and sister want to have sex with each other. There is no power-imbalance in this relationship, they are both able-bodied, mentally healthy adults who are going to use protection and take measures against pregnancy, what is wrong about this? It seems we can attempt to undermine these types of moral claims.
There is actually a problem in moral epistemology related to this, how we can have moral knowledge
Comment by Whiskeysnout at 06/01/2020 at 09:51 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
what is wrong about this?
In the given example, it is less likely to generate iterative success over generations. It is selected against.