In Defense of a Non-Natural Moral Order

[DLJ]

Calling them "objective things" is question begging.  Why not just call them 'objects'?

Was there a 'not' missing near the end there?  If not and I take you literally, then we agree... 'good' is a product (an artefact) of evolution.

Good is no more a product or an artifact of evolution, than a table, the sun, or the mountains.

Only the biological elements that allow us to sense and perceive  these things are. But they exist independent of our perceptions.

Would you agree that survival strategies such as 'safety in numbers' and specialisation of genes and similarly specialisation of roles within a social structure are products of evolution?

Would you also agree that organisms evolved these strategies based on concepts such agility vs. stability (and the trade-offs between the two) 'comfort zones' / the ability to create controlled environments? ... applicable whether one is referring to cells or to tribal, city or national boundaries.

'Good' and 'bad' relate to ease / dis-ease (physical and cognitive).

Nietzsche considered 'good' to be whatever the aristocracy says is 'good'. He was partially correct but this is in reference to 'organisational ethics'. The other part of the equation is 'individual ethics'; Nietzsche referred to this as 'resentement' but did not denote this as 'good' because he was looking at "the herd" - collections of non-aristocratic individuals - and not individuals with individual-ethics shaped by capability/maturity and being members of multiple organisational units.