@Nils Loc

I agree with most of your post; what you say is true.

We both talk about trends, but we don’t assign the same meaning to them. For me, the trends that can give rise to ethical principles are long-term trends that are far above events which, on the time scale we are considering, are not significant.

The fact you mention about cod and capelin, or also whales and plankton, does not undermine the great trend of generating life. From this, we cannot deduce that evolution generates death or destruction, the life of cod, capelin, whales, and plankton continues. In any case, we might deduce an important trend: living beings need to feed, and some do so by eating other animals, a trend that also extends to humans, who feed on cod, chickens, or pigs.

You are just cherry picking "trends" that align with some sense of life/diversity conservation. Nature's means of limiting growth may not be fun. — Nils Loc

I don’t believe I engage in "cherry-picking" and, since I aim to reason rigorously, I have no objection to delving deeper into the topic of great trends and, if necessary, making corrections. The trends I speak of are sequences of events originating in very remote times, persisting, and many of them "passing through" the plant kingdom, continuing in the animal kingdom, and finally reaching humans.

I think we must distinguish between a trend and the mechanisms that sustain it. "Equilibrium" is, in my view, a constant in evolution. As you rightly say, the mechanisms nature uses to maintain this trend are not fun.

Your comment provides an opportunity to present a good example of what I’m trying to convey:

• Equilibrium, the propensity for life, and freedom are three evolutionary trends which, according to my thesis, shed light on how we should act.
• Human overpopulation is a fact that is destabilizing certain areas of the planet. Since humans must maintain these trends, we need to correct this imbalance.
• The actions we take cannot go against the trends of evolution.
• To solve the problem, we must fully utilize the attributes we’ve been given: intelligence and consciousness.
• Possible actions could include informing the population about the advantages of limiting the number of children, providing free contraceptives, and educating women in sub-Saharan countries (where population growth is highest), among others.
• Actions that cannot be carried out because they violate evolutionary trends (propensity for life and freedom) include sterilization, penalties for exceeding a prescribed number of children, and wars that eliminate individuals.

Animals have their instincts. We can't rely solely on basic instincts; we have more sophisticated tools and must decide how to adapt to and respect the trends in our present world.

If we do not understand where we are, we cannot know where we should go. — Seeker25

I could not agree more. But the problem is, how do we get them all to listen? Anti-intellectualism has a long and brutal history, from Socrates to Galileo, to the deportation and subsequent murder of Armenian intellectuals (1915) to the mass exterminations of Stalin’s Great Purge (1930s) to China’s cultural revolution (1960s) to the persecution and murder of Navalny in Russia.

Anti-intellectualism is strong in the US, where Evangelicals and Southern Baptists denounce a belief in evolution and climate change as sins. Rejecting the intellectual “elites” may have been the deciding factor costing Harris the election. With Trump elected, we can expect the country to get more regressive, not progressive. The number of book bans in the US has skyrocketed in the last few years, and in “stop-woke” Florida they are teaching that slavery was good for the enslaved person since it taught them “valuable skills.”

In fact, Florida’s new education standards led to this quote from Florida Education Association President Andrew Spar:

“How can our students ever be equipped for the future if they don’t have a full, honest picture of where we’ve come from? Florida’s students deserve a world-class education that equips them to be successful adults who can help heal our nation’s divisions rather than deepen them … Gov. DeSantis is pursuing a political agenda guaranteed to set good people against one another, and in the process, he’s cheating our kids. They deserve the full truth of American history, the good and the bad.”

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/floridas-new-history-standard-blow-our-students-and-nation

So, how do we produce “citizens of the world” if they are denied the full truth?

Whether we like it or not, we must make decisions continuously, thereby shaping our life and our world. What criteria do we use to decide? — Seeker25

Education. We need an educational system that guides our young people to take into account and acknowledge all of history and all perspectives. And this requires that we overcome the forces (like populism) that keep us mired in our basest instincts.

• Equilibrium, the propensity for life, and freedom are three evolutionary trends which, according to my thesis, shed light on how we should act. — Seeker25

Stable relationships between species over time may include warfare/conflict or large acts of predation . Eusocial species, like ants, may develop means to distinguish between in-group out-group individuals of their own species and have conflicts on that basis. Sometimes it may be purely down to dietary source creating a pheromone signature.

Chat GPT says that evolutionary equilibrium is compatible with an arms race, such that perennial pattern of territory dispute between species could continually evolve together in a kind of reciprocating balance of adaptations.

The development of the human cognitive capacity probably emerged in part from endless conspecific war, resource/territory conflict. Such resource competitions are ongoing under the rules of a national/global Capitalist paradigm. We sink our savings into the stock market because we want to preserve the 'freedom' it gives us despite ridiculous, excessive and destructive aspect of a lot of consumption, which is about individuals collaborating/competing to acquire resources (economic warfare/game). One might question the ethics of a lot of economic relationships which serve us insofar as one would rather remain ignorant of their unwholesome reality.

Is it ethical to own stock in Coca Cola? Why aren't they just a culturally sanctioned version of harmful drug dealers? Shouldn't we be free to sell coca cola? One person's benefit is another person's harm but such a trade-off is acceptable if we value the freedom at the cost of such consequences.

So, how do we produce “citizens of the world” if they are denied the full truth? — Questioner

Education. We need an educational system that guides our young people to take into account and acknowledge all of history and all perspectives. And this requires that we overcome the forces (like populism) that keep us mired in our basest instincts. — Questioner

This is an important question. I have some ideas that need to be checked and refined.

I am deeply convinced that politicians will not solve humanity’s problems. Here’s why:

1. Self-Interest over common good: Many politicians are not genuinely interested in addressing human issues; they pursue their own interests and those of their cronies. Even truly democratic politicians prioritize staying in power, which often conflicts with humanity’s larger needs.

2. Geopolitical constraints: Politicians are bound by geopolitical considerations and cannot act solely based on ethical principles. For example, Biden providing weapons to exterminate Palestinians to secure Jewish votes and support, or the global south supporting Russia’s invasion to counterbalance Western dominance.

3. Erosion of global Institutions: Politicians have rendered crucial global institutions like the UN ineffective. Some actively try to weaken others, such as the EU, and we have yet to see the long-term impact of Trump’s influence on U.S. institutions.

Politicians will not drive the transformative change the world needs.

Could we leverage major evolutionary trends to provoke this change? Maybe, let us think about it.

I am not naive, and I know that what I am about to explain is not easy to achieve. However, I also know that when something does not work, we must imagine actions that, even if they seem utopian at first, can, if well-developed and implemented, help us solve the problems.

There is an enormous source of potential that could ignite this change: the 8 billion intelligent minds spread across the globe. These minds could be mobilized into action if honestly equipped with knowledge, accurate information, and shared human objectives. So, why is basic education still managed by local governments, each imposing its own biases, instead of creating a global standard for basic human education?

Fortunately, we now have tools that didn’t exist a decade ago. We can create worldwide networks, access instant translations in hundreds of languages, and more. These tools offer unprecedented opportunities for collaboration and change.

If a certain consensus could be reached among people from different countries and cultures about what is good or bad for humanity, it could mark the beginning of a collegiate apolitical authority capable of morally censuring actions by governments and other centres of power that go against humanity's interests. If this idea works, millions of people could join in and drive change.

Politicians will not drive the transformative change the world needs. — Seeker25

No, probably not. But, political systems provide the conditions that determine whether progress can be made or not. Only democracies, with representation from free and fair elections, human rights like freedom of association and expression, and the rule of law, allow the free exchange of ideas and their implementation.

And while the worldwide trend over the last couple of centuries has been towards democracy, there has been democratic backsliding. According to a recent report measuring the global state of democracy, the number of countries worldwide moving towards authoritarianism is more than double the number moving towards democracy.

So what do we do as we watch the world slide into autocracy?

If a certain consensus could be reached among people from different countries and cultures about what is good or bad for humanity, it could mark the beginning of a collegiate apolitical authority capable of morally censuring actions by governments and other centres of power that go against humanity's interests. If this idea works, millions of people could join in and drive change. — Seeker25

That would be heaven on earth.

Couple questions:

Could the entire world’s population agree on what is good or bad for humanity?

What form would this “apolitical authority” take and from where would it derive its power?

Are you advocating for anarchism?

Plus I am not sure how i can really reach the conclusion that there are no moral principles without assuming the reality of principles of reason, and those are just as much jeopardized by the evolutionary account as the moral principles are. — Clearbury

How is it that you think principles of reason jeopardized by the evolutionary account? What if principles of reason are in accordance with the way the world is. We don't see contradictory realities or things which are neither this nor that. The LNC and the LEM are two central principles of reason. If inductive reason leads to a belief in the evolutionary account, and inductive reasoning is an aid to survival, then how do you see the two as being in conflict or being incompatible?

Principles of reason seem as jeopardized by an evolutionary account as moral principles are (which are, i take it, just another form of principles of reason anyway), because principles of reason are not part of the physical landscape in which evolutionary forces are operating. Even if they accurately describe that landscape, the fact remains that they are not part of it, and as such all that needs to be posited is the belief in such principles, not the principles themselves.

So to explain why we have the beliefs we do about the sizes and shapes of things in our immediate environment we posit actual sized shaped things in our immediate environment. Being disposed to form approximately accurate beliefs about them would get selected for. So in that case positing the actual existence of what the beliefs are about helps explain why we have them.

But in the case of principles of reason, we do not have to posit the principles themselves, but only the beliefs in them. It is believing in the truth of the law of non-contradiction that helped my father breed more successfully, because by believing in it he would have avoided (for longer) being killed by something shaped and sized. But as it is the shaped and sized thing that would have killed him, not a principle of reason, then we do not have to posit any principles to explain why my father survived and bred.

I don't yet see a way around this. Nothing stops one from supposing that there really are principles of reason, but their actual existence would be pure coincidence given a wholly evolutionary account of our development.

@Nils Loc

I see no contradictions between what you mention, which is true, and what I propose. It might be that competition among living beings is also a tendency in evolution; I’ll think about it.

If the paradigm I propose is correct, then the events that occur in the world should fit within it. As a reminder, I argue that the major trends of evolution are beneficial for humanity and that they form a framework within which human behavior should develop.Let’s see how we can evaluate the facts you present considering these trends.

Competition and the struggle to ensure natural selection have been a constant in the evolution of living beings and, in fact, continue to exist in different forms with humans; competition drives progress. According to my thesis, every evolutionary big trend is good, and I believe competition is beneficial as it advances humanity. However, we must also respect all other trends, such as evolutionary balance, the preservation of life and diversity, the development of intelligence, and so on.

The result of integrating all of this into the proposed paradigm might look, in general terms, as follows:

Competition is good and should be maintained, but it is constrained by the respect owed to other evolutionary trends.

• Respect for life: Competition and progress are incompatible with an arms race.
• Respect for individuals arising from human interdependence: Social protection for those who lose their jobs due to the closure of obsolete activities.
• Maintaining diversity: Competition cannot reduce diversity to a monopoly. Because, when they can, abuse their position.
• Adapting evolutionary trends to contemporary situations through intelligence: A portion of the gains obtained by the winning competitor should be redistributed through taxes.
• Human actions that do not overtly violate major trends: For instance, investing in Coca-Cola stocks or excessive consumption. However, I believe we must develop the consciousness with which we have been endowed, as this very consciousness allows us to avoid excessive consumption or discarding unhealthy products.

These are very complex topics to address in a few lines, but at first glance, I see no contradictions in incorporating your comments into my proposal.

Ethics requires intent. Evolution has intent the way ethics requires. I can't see my way to thinking this could be even a reasonable starting point.

Any cliff notes that can set me right? The thread is muddled and unhelpful in that regard overall.

Evolution is a theory and as such is not a part of the physical landscape, so it belongs with reason. The correctness or incorrectness of that theory is not part of the physical landscape either but is determined by what actually has happened in the physical landscape. About this we have only clues which enable us to tell the story that is the Theory of Evolution.

Likewise, the basic principles of reason, the LNC, the LEM and consistency itself, as I already said, accord with our experience of the physical landscape, so they could be expected to have evolved out of that experience. An animal that can reason and anticipate what might happen would obviously have a survival advantage over one that cannot. I think it is obvious that animals also reason, at least in concrete, if not abstract, ways.

Nothing you have yet said explains why we should think that the fact that reason evolved out of our experience negates its validity. I'm still waiting for that argument. You are yet to be a very clear bury.

Evolution is a theory and as such is not a part of the physical landscape, so it belongs with reason. The correctness or incorrectness of that theory is not part of the physical landscape either but is determined by what actually has happened in the physical landscape. About this we have only clues which enable us to tell the story that is the Theory of Evolution. — Janus

There are some things said here which I must question. First of all, understanding the definition of a scientific theory. It is not a "hunch" - but a well-supported set of conclusions supported by evidence. We do not measure scientific theories by their "correctness or incorrectness" but by the weight of the evidence supporting them. The evidence for the theory of evolution could fill a library.

Also, the theory of evolution is not a "story." That term diminishes what we know about evolution. It sounds like something you might believe in, or might not. But evolution does not ask us for faith, it asks us to review the evidence, and then make our own conclusion.

An animal that can reason and anticipate what might happen would obviously have a survival advantage over one that cannot. I think it is obvious that animals also reason, at least in concrete, if not abstract, ways. — Janus

We are the only animals that understand that sexual intercourse leads to babies. What do you make of that?

The evidence for the theory of evolution could fill a library. — Questioner

Nothing I said contradicts that.

Also, the theory of evolution is not a "story." — Questioner

It is a story—a very well supported one. However unlikely it might be, it is not impossible that it is false.

We are the only animals that understand that sexual intercourse leads to babies. What do you make of that? — Questioner

How could you know that?

Evolution is a theory and as such is not a part of the physical landscape, so it belongs with reason. — Janus

That misses the point. The best explanation of why we believe there are reasons to do and believe things is not that there actually are, but that believing in them conferred an evolutionary advantage.

The belief in principles of reason is what confers the advantage, not the actual existence of any.

This is a problem because if there is a reason to believe that the theory of evolution is true, then principles of reason exist.

Thus, if there is a case for an evolutionary account of our development, then it can't be the full story, because if it was the full story then there wouldn't be any cases possible for anything.

That misses the point. The best explanation of why we believe there are reasons to do and believe things is not that there actually are, but that believing in them conferred an evolutionary advantage.

The belief in principles of reason is what confers the advantage, not the actual existence of any. — Clearbury

Principles of reason don't exist other than as thoughts or sentences. They are merely codifications of what is the general case regarding our experiences. What about the laws of nature? Do you think they exist? Or are they just codifications of observed regularities and invariances?

We don't believe evolution is true on account of principles of reason in any case but on account of the evidence. Principles of reason don't give us any knowledge they just keep us honest in our thinking—that is (if we follow them) stop us from contradicting ourselves, and make sure we are consistent in our thinking.

Thus, if there is a case for an evolutionary account of our development, then it can't be the full story, because if it was the full story then there wouldn't be any cases possible for anything. — Clearbury

A mere assertion—the argument for it is missing.

Principles of reason don't exist other than as thoughts or sentences. — Janus

So if I just 'think' the theory of evolution is true, then that's sufficient for there to be reason to believe it is true?

That's not a defensible theory about what principles of reason are. There's a huge debate over exactly what reality would need to be like in order to contain any, but the view that 'if you think it, it is so' and the view that principles of reason are shaped sized things are not in serious contention. Hence the problem.

Laws of nature are not laws of reason, so it is not clear why you are mentioning them. A law of nature is just a description of a regularity in the natural world. That's not at all what a principle of reason is and so is irrelevant.

There is no evolutionary debunking challenge to laws of nature, for an evolutionary account presupposes that there is a natural world - and a law of nature just describes its behaviour.

A mere assertion—the argument for it is missing. — Janus

Completely false. I did not 'assert' it. I patiently explained the nature of evolutionary debunking 'arguments' to you. Twice. If you don't think I argued a case, then I see no point in continuing this exchange.

So if I just 'think' the theory of evolution is true, then that's sufficient for there to be reason to believe it is true?

That's not a defensible theory about what principles of reason are. — Clearbury

We believe the theory of evolution on account of evidence not because we just "think it is true" without any grounds, or on account of principles of reason. If you think otherwise explain to me what principles of reason constitute the basis for believing the TOE.

@Banno
@Janus
@Clearbury
@AmadeusD

FOCUSING THE TOPIC

I am a very recent member of TPF, and I’m not entirely familiar with the customs here, but as the initiator of the OP (Original Post), I believe it’s my responsibility to try to focus the discussion.

We are likely people with diverse academic backgrounds, life experiences, and professional careers. This diversity makes the conversation lively and very interesting, but to avoid getting sidetracked, we should concentrate on the goal of the OP:

• The world is not doing well. We don’t solve the systemic problems.

• Why can’t humanity find ethical principles to guide its behavior and decisions? Do such principles exist? Where are they?

• Could the persistent trends that Earth’s evolution has shown serve as a source from which to derive principles to guide humanity?

• When something is not working, we must make changes. Can we contribute to improving the state of humanity?

My background and experience are in business and economics. Why do I bring these topics to TPF? Because I enjoy philosophy for its conceptual rigor and demand for coherence, as it helps me reflect and, if necessary, adjust my theses.

To attempt to improve the state of humanity, and here lies the main challenge, we must start from theories. However, the effort will be in vain if we cannot propose actions that could be put into practice.

Note: In my opinion, some posts have revealed two misunderstandings regarding trends:

• The trends I consider fundamental are not limited to evolution as Darwin conceived it. At the beginning of our planet, they were physical trends, then chemical, later biological, and finally (I’m not sure what to call it) they transformed into intelligence and consciousness. These trends will continue even if humanity self-destructs.

• Trends affect humans, and we observe them embodied in ourselves, but we are not significant enough to constitute a trend. Humanity has existed for only 0.004% of Earth’s lifespan. If we confuse trends with our actions, it becomes impossible to draw valid conclusions.

For what it's worth I think that our understanding of evolutionary processes and particularly the way in which our linguistic abilities have enabled us to overcome environmental corrections which would knock back any other species that depleted its resources, and the understanding that this cannot go on forever, should show us how we should proceed if we want to survive as a species, and stop wiping out other species and ecosystems.

As to why we cannot seem to understand this on a global scale and coordinate our efforts to correct our own behavior, I think the answer is extremely complex and multilayered. I don't hold out much hope to be honest. I think the correction will most likely come in the form of war, even nuclear war or terrible pandemics or both, when resource scarcity really begins to bite hard.

It is a story—a very well supported one. However unlikely it might be, it is not impossible that it is false. — Janus

It is no more a story than atomic theory, gravity, thermodynamics, or cell theory. Stories come from the imagination. Scientific theories come from evidence.

How could you know that? — Janus

I read it.

political systems provide the conditions that determine whether progress can be made or not. — Questioner

I completely agree. The book *Why Nations Fail* by Nobel in economics, Acemoglu, explains that the progress of nations depends on certain conditions, which, in essence, are provided by democracy. I am still reading it, but it seems to me that the conditions for progress identified by Acemoglu align with the framework defined by evolutionary trends, while autocracies, which do not progress, violate that framework. It’s an interesting topic to delve deeper into.

According to a recent report measuring the global state of democracy, the number of countries worldwide moving towards authoritarianism is more than double the number moving towards democracy. — Questioner

I am surprised that while democracies are in decline, and according to the Nobel, progress will also be affected, no established power is taking action to counteract this. Yet another demonstration of how democracies are being attacked: Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Romania had to invalidate the recent elections because Russia interfered and managed to get the pro-Russian candidate elected, instead of the pro-EU candidate, supported by the majority, who had been defeated.

So what do we do as we watch the world slide into autocracy? — Questioner

The selfish individuals in power know exactly where they are headed; another part of humanity (the most humble, who suffer) know where they do not want to go. And a large part of educated humanity has reasonable doubts about the direction in which humanity should move, partly because they resist accepting that we are part of something much greater than ourselves and cannot act against it. If we continue like this, it is clear that the selfish individuals in power will end up imposing their criteria.

As I have argued, solutions will not come from governments, nor from supranational institutions that politicians have discredited and will continue to discredit as long as humanity remains uncertain about how to act.

Global problems require global solutions, which cannot come from politicized and discredited supranational institutions. I see no other solution than to turn to individuals united around an idea that benefits them and that they can understand: The world must respect the trends of evolution: life, diversity, beauty, freedom, the development of intelligence, balance, etc. What is important, at first, is to ensure a broad consensus, even if it means giving up some of these elements or refraining from calling them ethical principles.

I am aware that, in defense of humanity, I am treading on unknown ground.

Could the entire world’s population agree on what is good or bad for humanity? — Questioner

If Trump, by telling many falsehoods, managed to gather 77 million people to his project, it should be possible for a single idea, well-structured and explained, to unite the wills of a few hundred million citizens worldwide.

What form would this “apolitical authority” take and from where would it derive its power? — Questioner

Their power has the same justification as the power of citizens in any democratic state, but with three fundamental differences:
A) The scope of the vote is not national but global;
B) Citizens who do not have this right in their own country can also vote;
C) It does not have any of the three traditional powers of a state, only a small structure that honestly receives and distributes relevant information, periodically collects opinions, and informs the world of the results.

I wonder what would happen if 500 million people insisted that the head of state of country X must step down because he is harming humanity.

I imagine that such an organization should be born affiliated with one of the major global organizations that defend human rights, and later on become independent.

By the way, I'm not advocating for anarchism !!

I completely agree. The book *Why Nations Fail* by Nobel in economics, Acemoglu, explains that the progress of nations depends on certain conditions, which, in essence, are provided by democracy. I am still reading it, but it seems to me that the conditions for progress identified by Acemoglu align with the framework defined by evolutionary trends, while autocracies, which do not progress, violate that framework. It’s an interesting topic to delve deeper into. — Seeker25

It seems you are saying modern democratic trends are more in line with our evolutionary trends than is autocracy. Yet, for most of human history, rule was by autocracy. We haven’t significantly evolved in the last two hundred years, the time during which we see the rise of the modern democracy (free and fair elections, mass suffrage, executive accountability, political liberties and human rights). I think it is more likely that we overcame some of our baser instincts – tribalism, attraction to the strongman, an “us vs. them” mentality, fear – to accomplish this.

The question becomes – why are we witnessing a regression to those states?

I am surprised that while democracies are in decline, and according to the Nobel, progress will also be affected, no established power is taking action to counteract this. — Seeker25

To get political for a minute, that is why it is so important that the US, as the world leader in the protection of democracy, not falter with Ukraine.

Global problems require global solutions, which cannot come from politicized and discredited supranational institutions. I see no other solution than to turn to individuals united around an idea that benefits them and that they can understand: The world must respect the trends of evolution: life, diversity, beauty, freedom, the development of intelligence, balance, etc — Seeker25

Significant change usually originates with the intellectuals and the poets. I posted elsewhere, the first to be persecuted when an autocrat comes to power are the intellectuals and the great thinkers.

If Trump, by telling many falsehoods, managed to gather 77 million people to his project, — Seeker25

Mostly, he appeals to their baser instincts, and not their rationality.

Their power has the same justification as the power of citizens in any democratic state, but with three fundamental differences:
A) The scope of the vote is not national but global;
B) Citizens who do not have this right in their own country can also vote;
C) It does not have any of the three traditional powers of a state, only a small structure that honestly receives and distributes relevant information, periodically collects opinions, and informs the world of the results. — Seeker25

You are a visionary! We need more like that.

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. — Seeker25

This is a claim you made in your initial post. But the point is that you seem to be confusing the evolution of moral beliefs with the evolution of moral principles themselves. This is a well-known fallacy. That we may have evolved to 'believe' that there are moral principles - moral principles telling us to behave in what turns out to be reproductively advantageous ways - does not show us that there actually are such principles. On the contrary, it implies there are not. It was the mere belief that conferred the advantage - something it would have done regardless of the actual existence of any such moral principles - and so simplicity bids us conclude that the principles themselves do not exist.

It is no more a story than atomic theory, gravity, thermodynamics, or cell theory. Stories come from the imagination. Scientific theories come from evidence. — Questioner

All theories are stories. some more clearly supported by evidence than others. Scientific theories come from the imagination, just as other kinds of stories do. This is the creative * abductive reasoning) side of science.

I read it. — Questioner

Perhaps your critical thinking skills need a honing then.

does not show us that there actually are such principles. — Clearbury

What do you mean by "actually are such principles". Of course there are such principles otherwise people would not be able to follow them. It doesn't follow that all those actual moral principles are correct.

What do you mean by "actually are such principles". Of course there are such principles otherwise people would not be able to follow them. It doesn't follow that all those actual moral principles are correct. — Janus

That's like arguing that God must exist otherwise people wouldn't be able to do what they believe God wants them to do!

If someone believes God wants them to reproduce, then they may well reproduce in light of that belief. That doesn't show that God exists.

LIkewise, if someone believes that it is morally right to reproduce (or to behave in ways that will make reproduction more likely), then this may well cause them to reproduce. That isn't evidence that it is morally right to reproduce - it's not evidence there really is a moral principle enjoining such behaviour.

Scientific theories come from the imagination, just as other kinds of stories do — Janus

No, they don't. Scientific theories are formed as the result of many repeated experiments and the gathering of observations. They are characterized by repeated testing, strong evidence and consensus.

abductive reasoning) side of science. — Janus

Abduction still requires observation and measure of the physical existence.

Abduction still requires observation and measure of the physical existence. — Questioner

Of course I don't deny the role of observation and measurement and also the existing body of accepted theory. Creative imagination is then required to form an inferential story (hypothesis) out of those observations and measurements. Some hypotheses that withstand extensive testing then go on to become accepted theory.

That's like arguing that God must exist otherwise people wouldn't be able to do what they believe God wants them to do! — Clearbury

It's not really like that because God is imagined as an entity that is omniscient and omnibenevolent, and being so can be the guarantor of the truth of moral principles. Moral principles are not the sort of thing that could exist independently of the mind that posit and/or uphold them. Even if moral principles did exist independently of humans what could guarantee their rightness? In any case moral principles undoubtedly exist in human communities as guides for right action.

You seem to be committing some kind of weird category errors.

You seem to be committing some kind of weird category errors — Janus

And you seem not to be grasping the point. You said, and I quote

Of course there are such principles otherwise people would not be able to follow them — Janus

That's obviously false. 'Believing' there are such principles enough to explain why a person does as they do. One does not have to suppose that the principles themselves exist. Again, lots of people think they're following God - that doesn't show God to exist.

That's obviously false. 'Believing' there are such principles enough to explain why a person does as they do. — Clearbury

Such principles are alive in the community, so your restricted notion of their possible existence is inaapropriate. How else could they exist but as guides to action that people either accept or reject?

God may or may not exist but at least he is imagined as the kind of entity that might exist. People have not imagined free-floating moral principles existing, and as I said even if they were thought to exist in some realm they would have no compelling power. It is only on account of God's purported omniscience and omni-benevolence that his revelation of moral principles is thought to be binding.

I don't believe in God myself but that is beside the point.

Creative imagination is then required to form an inferential story (hypothesis) out of those observations and measurements. — Janus

Thank you, yes. We tend to think of science as a pursuit of analytical thinking, but of course creativity and imagination are required, too. Here’s an interesting quote from Albert Einstein (1929):

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

https://aeon.co/ideas/science-is-deeply-imaginative-why-is-this-treated-as-a-secret

A belief in a moral principle is not sufficient for the principle to exist.

We're going in circles here.

If you believe it is right to rape people, that doesn't make the principle 'rape people' exist. It doesn't exist. There is no such principle. Some people may believe there is - but that doesn't make it exist anymore than believing there's a god makes a god exist.

Yet a belief is sufficient to explain behaviour. And from an evolutionary perspective, it was 'beliefs' in moral principles that conferred the reproductive advantage by promoting adaptive behaviour. That doesn't mean the principles themselves exist.

That's precisely why there's a problem here - one known as the 'evolutionary debunking argument' against morality.

Actual moral principles seem entirely dispensable when it comes to explaining why creatures who believed in such principles would enjoy a reproductive advantage over those who did not. And thus the simplest and best explanation of why it is that people today believe in moral principles is not that there actually are some, but that the mere belief in them was adaptive for their ancestors.

I don't believe the evolutionary debuking argument against morality is sound, but we should at least make it clear that it presents a real challenge.