Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[genkaus]

A difference that can only only be hoped to be argued over by definition, yet again. We are animals. Human morality is an animal morality. Our morality, whatever it is, appears to be more complex than that of say, a cow. The varying levels of complexity that we may perceieve don't rule out heuristics in the case of the cow, ourselves, or an ant. I'm screaming bias on this one (I always do).

You do realize that the key difference between them is the ability to reflect or consider one's actions, right? Because if you don't, we need to start crusading for death penalty to lions on multiple homicide counts.

Communicating the particulars of your hueristic process does not change that it is a heuristic process. Borrowing from a set of equally or more successful hueristics to augment your own is equally incapable of changing the fact that they are heuristics.

Actually, it does. Heuristic basically means coming to an answer by trial and error. Once you come to an answer and pass in on to someone else, then for them the solution is no longer trial and error based.

I already handled this, it can appear to be such even if it is not. Which is quite often the case...with heuristics. The most famous example being ants, who's actions appear to be guided, who appear to have some sort of oversight, who create complex (relatively) social structures and physical objects, when in fact, no such guidance is occurring (or even possible in their case). A solution to a problem that relies on this process can have literally nothing to do with the problem at any given step, no direction whatsoever, the only thing that matters is the outcome, and there isn't anything pulling the strings to make that happen. For something to be a guide, to me, it would have to have just a little bit more. But this seems to be a difference in definition, yet again.

If reasoning were a string of inputs and outputs that allowed you to "get it right" by scrutinizing any given step, heuristics could be seen as a string of guesses (no inputs required) that had a statistically high occurrence of "getting it right"

Once again, it is irrelevant how heuristics work in case of animals, since that is not how we work. The actions we take to achieve our goals are not a series of directionless guesses that lead to a certain goal which we later justify as what we wanted all along. The series of actions we undertake are in fact directed towards our goals. When we are out of groceries, we don't end up at the supermarket by chance - we have to undertake the all the actions with the specific goal of getting there. The fact that heuristics may appear guided is irrelevant to current human morality, because our current human actions are in fact guided.