Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    In a naturalistic universe, Darwinian evolution would be ... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    In a naturalistic universe, Darwinian evolution would be expected to select for moral judgments that track survival rather than objective moral truths

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Under metaphysical naturalism, the evolutionary process is unguided
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An unguided evolutionary process selects for traits that enhance survival, not for epistemic accuracy regarding mind-independent moral facts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Social cooperation requires tracking genuinely harm-relevant features of the world, making fitness and moral truth tracking convergent rather than divergent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sharon Street's own evolutionary debunking argument concedes that valuing well-being and fairness is fitness-enhancing, which tracks what most moral realists count as moral truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If fitness-enhancing traits systematically track morally relevant properties like suffering and flourishing, evolution selects for moral accuracy, not mere survival indifference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument equivocates between 'tracking objective moral facts' and 'tracking mind-independent Platonic moral facts,' conflating distinct metaethical positions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Cornell realists like Sturgeon and Boyd hold that moral properties are identical to or constituted by natural properties, making evolutionary tracking of natural facts sufficient for moral tracking.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If moral properties reduce to natural properties, then an evolution calibrated to natural survival-relevant features is ipso facto calibrated to moral features, undermining the claimed gap.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilitySkepticism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    An unguided evolutionary process selects for traits that enhance survival, not f...Cornell realists like Sturgeon and Boyd hold that moral properties are identical...If fitness-enhancing traits systematically track morally relevant properties lik...If moral properties reduce to natural properties, then an evolution calibrated t...
    +4 moreShow less
    Sharon Street's own evolutionary debunking argument concedes that valuing well-b...Social cooperation requires tracking genuinely harm-relevant features of the wor...The argument equivocates between 'tracking objective moral facts' and 'tracking ...Under metaphysical naturalism, the evolutionary process is unguided

    Similar

    Street's evolutionary debunking argument against moral realism depends...81%Many forms of moral naturalism allow compatibility between moral truth...78%Moral naturalism opens the possibility that ancestors who responded po...78%Rejecting metaphysical naturalism provides a viable path for moral rea...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-arguments-god
    View source passageHide passage
    Street’s argument has also been challenged by such critics as Russ Shafer-Landau (2012). However, her argument, and similar arguments, have been acknowledged by some moral realists, such as David Enoch (2011) and Erik Wielenberg (2014) to pose a significant problem for their view. Enoch, for example, even though he offers a response to Street’s argument, evidently has some worries about the strength of his reply. Wielenberg, to avoid the criticism that in a non-theistic universe it would be extr
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit