Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?

[genkaus]

Agreed, but again, the only way I know how to do that is by using the thing I'm trying to prove is reliable. Circular reasoning.

No, another way of proving is that no other alternative is possible.

Well, what is reality? I forgot the person's name, but someone throughout history started questioning his very own existence. He argued that reality was playing tricks on him e.g. a cup looks circular from the top but looks rectangular from the side, and flat in both instances which it is not. Let's see if you've defined reality.

Reality is what exists independent of anyone's perception of it. The guy in your example was making the mistake of thinking that it was his perception that was determining reality - that if it looked circular and rectangular form different perspectives then that made it both.

You're taking so much for granted here, as if it's obvious. What is the colour red? For all you know you've been taught that an apple is red but your red registers as green in my brain. We have no way of knowing how someone percieves something. Only they know what 'reality' looks to them but there's no way of measuring that against a 'universal' standard so that we can determine it is in fact reality. If you think there is such a thing, then please describe 'red' to me.

The way it "registers" in one's brain is irrelevant. The attribute of being red is intrinsic to the apple and is determined by the wavelength of light it reflects. Regardless of how it registers or if it registers, the apple would remain red.

If and when something like that perception registers, we give it a descriptive tag identifying that intrinsic property. That tag is objective in nature because it depends upon the object of perception rather than us. It doesn't matter if in our internal model this tag corresponds to different things as long as externally it corresponds to the same thing.