Evolution cannot account for morality

[The Architect Of Fate]

It’s true that we’ve evolved very little since the time of khan.  We’ve been fully modern for 50k years, at least.  It’s not true that morality can’t be studied and the same standard used between people of different times.  That’s been done, and the results…so far as they can be inferred from historic sources and dig sites, are remarkably similar to the results you’ll get today….which is itself a study of different people who can and do believe different things just in our own time.  

Morality as expressed changes with a great many things.  There’s cultural relativity and individual subjectivity, ofc, but there’s also change in objective circumstance.  Point being, changes to the contents of our normative statements would be expected under any idea of what morality is.  Regardless of whether biological evolution occurred.  

It just so happens to be the case that it did, and since it did, and since that’s lead to changes in state and circumstance, any objective view of harm, for example, would change by necessity.  If an animal evolves an intelligence like ours and then proceeds to discover the world around them with that swanky new ability any objective view of -anything- would change…..again necessarily.

If you look at human history, and prehistory, with an eye for moral systems rather than individual moral dictates, you might notice that this is exactly what happened.  In sum, the idea that evolution…biological or cultural, doesn’t account for the existence of moral systems…in an ultra social species…no less…just doesn’t hold water.  OFC it can, and does.

That’s not likely to be the item of disagreement, though.  That’s more like does the mere existence of a moral dictate as a product of evolution certify that it’s contents are accurate, in fact.  That one, is a hard no.  There are alot of things that advantage our communities, our breeding populations…that are Not Great Bob.

There, ofc, I’m speaking from a realists perspective.  There are certainly people willing to say that whatever is natural is right….and owing to the indelible stamp of our lowly origin that idea probably wouldn’t cause any huge disruptions.  It’s fashionable to be a misanthrope, but we’re a remarkably goofy and peaceful animal given our size, needs, and potential for harm.  The fashionability of misanthropy itself a demonstration of our capacity for self scrutiny.  

This. Imo, is why and how so many of the so called axial religions failed as moral systems.  They were an attempt to fix broken man- but man is not actually broken, then or now.  A description of how to solve problems which do not exist…and…very often, by means that wouldn’t fix that problem if it did exist.  This is also why those moral systems are on perpetual guard against paganism by any name…as those systems are very often aligned at fixing environments rather than people, and the urge to employ them is never more than a fully natural urge away.

I think this accounts for a huge portion of moral skepticism today, but not rightly so.  That many people have gotten something wrong doesn’t certify that no one can get them right or that there is no accurate answer.  Similarly, that nature and mere existence does not certify a moral statement does not imply that nature and existence are uninformative.  

Does it make sense that we have instincts??  In a word, yes.  Would it make sense if our every instinct were aligned to a moral goal (assuming the latter as fact).  No.  Does a god have anything to do with any of this…assuming it exists?  No.

Where does evolution come from?  Organic chemistry.  I’m sure that we can all agree that chemistry is….powerful.

Okay so we chalk up life to chemistry, no problem. We say that inanimate matter transformed into life, by way of chemistry, okay fine. But you do not see anything weird with evolution only applying to life? 

And you have written a lot so I do not want you to think that I am discounting all that you said, but I also need to respond to others as well...

So, to reiterate, what is the problem with saying that matter evolved into life and life evolves into, idk, life that survives longer?

The theory of Abiogenesis is not the same as the theory of Evolution thus it should be called the same thing.