So answer the questions and address the argument if you want this discussion to progress any further. — Janus

No discussion with you goes anywhere. I'm using you.

I'll put it another way: normative reasons are effective only if we believe them. Adaptive advantage gives us good reason to believe in them; namely that following them is generally adaptively advantageous.. — Janus

Address the OP. You haven't done that. If there are normative reasons, then we have reason to believe in them. But if an evolutionary account of our development is true, then there aren't any. See? So you need to show how there will be some if an evolutionary account is true. It's called 'begging the question'. You do it. Always.

I don't know what you mean by that (and nor do you). — Bartricks

It means that it is a distinction without a real difference. But you won't attempt to answer the questions I posed which will show that.

Address the OP. You haven't done that. If there are normative reasons, then we have reason to believe in them. — Bartricks

And what reason would that be?

It means that it is a distinction without a real difference. — Janus

So, you think normative reasons are causes and causes are normative reasons?
Or did you not know what you were saying (clue: it's that one).

And what reason would that be? — Janus

It would be an epistemic reason. There - that's a big word for you. You can misuse that one now. Have fun with it.

So, you think normative reasons are causes and causes are normative reasons? — Bartricks

Answer the question: do normative reasons cause us to do things or not?

It would be an epistemic reason. There - that's a big word for you. You can misuse that one now. Have fun with it. — Bartricks

What do you claim we know when we have a normative reason to do something? Why should we follow what seems, normatively speaking, the right thing to do? As the word 'normative' suggests, when we follow normative reasons we are following norms; where do these norms come from and how are they established if not from social convention? I know you'll say they come from reason, but according to you it's not the case that reason "won't ever lie". So why should we follow normative reasons (even assuming that we know just what they are in all circumstances) if they might be based on lies?

Answer the question: do normative reasons cause us to do things or not? — Janus

Yes, they 'can' do (as I said and you didn't bother to read). Now answer my questions:

do you think that causes and normative reasons are one and the same or were you just putting big words together that you didn't really understanding and hoping I'd think you were clever and not a Hugh?

Now, stop asking me questions and actually engage with the argument in the OP. ("But how do we know anything? And everything is subjective. And how do we know anything? Is it true just because Bartfuck says so? How know everything do we? Subjective. Conceptual. Noumenal. Hegel." Yes?).

do you think that causes and normative reasons are one and the same — Bartricks

There are different kinds of causes for actions and normative reasons are one of them. Desires are another, and instincts are another. So that all reasons are causes does not entail that all causes are reasons, since there are other kinds of natural causes that do not pertain to human action and are thus not reasons for human action ( although they might be)..

There are different kinds of causes for actions and normative reasons are one of them. Desires are another, and instincts are another. So that all reasons are causes does not entail that all causes are reasons, since there are other kinds of natural causes that do not pertain to human action and are thus not reasons for human action ( although they might be).. — Janus

I asked you if you think that causes and normative reason are one and the same.

Your answer, so far as I can discern it in that muddle, is 'no'.

That's correct.

Normative reasons can be the causes of things. They're not always. For example, you have reason to think I know what I am talking about. You don't though. So that reason is not being causally effective.

But they 'can' be.

So, that something has been caused to occur does not mean that a normative reason is present.

Do you see how that follows?

If not all causes of things are normative reasons, then if something has been caused to occur you can't conclude that a noramtive reason exists.

Do you see?

Now, the word 'reason' can sometimes be used as a synonym for 'cause'

When it occurs in evolutionary explanations, that's what it means. It denotes a cause.

And that's not equivalent to it denoting a normative reason. Do you see?

And so though an evolutionary explanation of our development will cite causes, it will not cite normative reasons.

It will cite beliefs in them. It will not cite the objects of the beliefs. And I explained in the OP why, when that happens, we do not need to posit the object.

Now, if you think my argument is dumb - which you do - then you need to do the following. You need - without conflating normative reasons and causes - to show how an evolutionary explanation of our development needs to posit actual noramtive reasons. Not causes and not the belief in normative reasons. Actual normative reasons.

Do that.

or example, you have reason to think I know what I am talking about. You don't though. So that reason is not being causally effective. — Bartricks

If I thought you knew what you were talking about then that would condition my behavior, I would behave differently if I didn't think you knew what you were talking about. so either way it is causal.

show how an evolutionary explanation of our development needs to posit actual noramtive reasons. Not causes and not the belief in normative reasons. Actual normative reasons. — Bartricks

All evolutionarily established reasons for behavior of social animals are in some sense, however attenuated, normative. This is because the social animal is constrained to behave in ways acceptable to the group or suffer the consequences. For the social animal to be exiled from the group is a disaster.

Where is your argument? All you have done above is once more insist that all causes are normative reasons - which they are not. Look, you don't seem capable of grasping a point for longer than a minute.
Normative reasons can cause things. But not all causes are normative reasons. So, that an evolutionary story appeals to causes does not establish that normative reasons have to be posited. Stop hoping that big words like 'attenuated' will make up for a lack of point

You need - without conflating normative reasons and causes - to show how an evolutionary explanation of our development needs to posit actual noramtive reasons. Not causes and not the belief in normative reasons. Actual normative reasons. — Bartricks

@Bartricks

And I think you must show if our belief in normative reasons is actually evolving or not. If it is evolving, you need to show if it is evolving under the constraint of natural selection or some other force or none other than by random chance - again, there is no point in discussing a relationship between natural selection and normative reasons if our believe in normative reasons is not evolving under the constraint of natural selection. If our belief in normative reasons is not evolving, you must show that it is not evolving. I also think you must provide evidence in favor of your claim that the theory of evolution by natural selection does indeed not take into account normative reasons in its explanation of our development - it is not enough that you state such claim. Please do not refer me to your OP since as I said before I do not think it clearly addresses what I am asking you to demonstrate.

And I think you must show if our belief in normative reasons is actually evolving or not. — Daniel

Why? That makes no sense given I am arguing against such an account! Why would I need to defend the account I am attacking?

If our belief in normative reasons is not evolving, you must show that it is not evolving. — Daniel

Do pay attention - I am arguing that if a wholly evolutionary story about us is true, then there aren't any reasons to do or believe things. Yet there are reasons to do and believe things.....thus it is false.

This is the argument Daniel - read it:

Here it is:
1. If the correct explanation of a belief that p does not invoke the actual existence of p, then the belief is debunked because we do not have to posit p.

And to that we add this premise:

2. A purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things does not have to invoke the actual existence of any reasons to do things

From which it follows that:

3. If a purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things is correct, then our belief that there are reasons to do things is debunked because we do not have to posit any actual reasons to do things.
— Bartricks — Bartricks

Which premise do you think is false and why?

I am not convinced by what you bluntly and carelessly state in proposition number 2. I cannot say 2 is false or true simply because I am not able to find on the literature any evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things or even a decent attempt to address the problem in question. So, I am asking you to provide an article or some other source of reliable information in which the topic is analyzed and in which it is demonstrated that in fact a purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things does not take into the account normative reasons. I am not satisfied with you simply stating that a purely evolutionary explanation of our belief that there are reasons to do things does not take into account normative reasons. Also, since you maintain that our belief in normative reasons is not evolving, I would like you to show that it is in fact not evolving.

Now, since you are the owner of this thread, I think it is your duty to at least from time to time seriously address the questions put forward by those of us who decide to maintain a conversation with you not by referring us to the op nor by repeating the same thing over and over but by offering evidence that backs up and clarifies the claims that you make. So, I would like you to present an evolutionary explanation of our belief to do things which does not posit any normative reasons, or at least direct me to one.

The Origin of The Species by, if memory serves, Karl Dorwin

So, that an evolutionary story appeals to causes does not establish that normative reasons have to be posited. — Bartricks

I've already acknowledged that not all causes, for example merely physical causes, are normative reasons. I'm saying that causes of human and some "higher" social animals' behavior are, in the sense that behavior is constrained by what is acceptable to the group, normative.

I've already acknowledged that not all causes, for example merely physical causes, are normative reasons. — Janus

Yes, but in about 2 minutes time you'll say something that implies you think all causes are normative reasons.

I'm saying that causes of human and some "higher" social animals' behavior are, in the sense that behavior is constrained by what is acceptable to the group, normative. — Janus

Well anyone can say stuff. Argue.

A little help for you - you need to argue that actual normative reasons can kill people or somehow render them infertile.

Duck! Blimey - that was close. You almost got taken out by a normative reason.

Don't picnic there - there's a pride of normative reasons over there. THey eat humans!

He's dead I'm afraid Mrs Jenkins. A ton of normative reasons fell on him.

I would procreate with him, but he's covered in normative reasons.