Sharon Street's Darwinian dilemma demonstrates that evolutionary pressures track reproductive fitness, not moral truth, creating an explanatory burden the realist cannot discharge without circularity.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Moral realist / realism(referring to those who believe morality is real)
The philosophical position that moral facts actually exist independently—that something like 'stealing is wrong' is genuinely true, not just an opinion.
Moral truth(what Street's argument questions)
The idea that some moral statements are objectively true or false—not just opinions—the way 'the Earth orbits the Sun' is objectively true.
Reproductive fitness(measure of evolutionary success)
How successful an organism is at surviving long enough to have babies and passing on its genes to the next generation.
Sharon Street(as the philosopher behind the argument being discussed)
A contemporary philosopher who studies how evolution and culture shape our moral beliefs, and whether we can trust those beliefs because of these influences.