= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Natural selection defeats the orthogonality thesis - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (71)
But you also said:
What does that add up to? That moral values are arbitrary products of evolution, THEREFORE they are not objective or universal?
Indeed. The claim that moral instincts are products of evolution is a descriptive claim. It leaves the question open as to whether inherited instincts are what is actually morally right. That is a normative issue. It is not a corollary of descriptive evolutionary ethics. In general, you cannot jump from the descriptive to the normative. And I don't think Darwin did that. I think the positive descriptive claim and the negative normative claim seem like corollaries to you because assume morality can only be one thing,
Firstly it's not either/or.
Secondly there is an abundance, not a shortage, of ways of justifying normative ethics.
Yes, moral values are not objective or universal.
Note that this is not normative but descriptive. It is not saying what ought, but what is. I am not trying to justify normative ethics, just to provide an explanation of where our moral values come from.
(Thanks for the comments, this all adds value.)
Not proven. Yout can't prove that by noting that instinctual system 1, values aren't objective, because that says nothing about what system 2 can come up with.