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. — Clearbury

I am interested in refining my reasoning and understanding the reason why you say I am confusing concepts. To do so, I will lay out my reasoning step by step, separating and numbering the concepts, in order you can suggest and justify potential errors.

1. The tendencies of evolution (TE) condition living beings.
-Physically: Tuna will never fly, nor will eagles be able to live underwater.
-Behaviorally: Elephants are social beings, while leopards are solitary beings.
- Range of freedom: humans can behave against TE while animals can't
- Etc.

2. As intelligence evolves, the degree of freedom for animals increases. For example, whales have a greater degree of freedom than crocodiles, but neither surpasses the constraints imposed on them by the TE.

3. It is not defensible to claim that TE does not condition humans. As evolved animals, TE affects us just as it does other animals.

4. What happens is that these tendencies have generated more complex beings (humans) who possess intelligence and freedom. This allows us to accept the TE, adapt them to our time, or go against them, a capacity that animals, bound to follow these tendencies strictly, do not have.

5. To ensure this reasoning does not remain purely theoretical, I recall some very significant TE: Propensity for life, diversity, beauty, fragile and ephemeral life, balance, socialization, mutual dependence, freedom, etc.

6. What are ethical principles (EP)? Fundamental and universal norms that guide human behavior, establishing a common framework for discerning right from wrong.

7. It would make no sense for EP to contradict TE, because TE will not change, nor can we change them, and they condition and frame our lives.

8. Reason and consensus must determine EP which should be the practical application of TE to our era.

You are coming to conclusions about how people are disposed to behave.

Ethical principles are normative. That is, they prescribe. We can describe them. But what we are describing when we describe an ethical principle, is a prescription, not a description of a disposition.

Something that merely describes human behaviour - or typical human behaviour - is not an ethical principle, for it has no prescriptive force.

For example, it may be that given an evolutionary story about our development we can conclude that most men will be disposed to cheat on their partners when they can get away with it.

That's not a moral principle. This: "You ought not cheat on your partner" is.

Exactly what ontological commitments moral principles come with is a matter of dispute. But there are some things that are agreed. The first is that "people generally cheat on their partners when they can get away with it" is not - not - a moral principle in any sense at all. And thus by simply demonstrating why it might be reasonable to believe humans have certain dispositions, you have not demonstrated that ethical principles exist.
The second agreed upon claim about ethical principles is that believing them does not make them so. That is, to 'believe' that we ought not cheat on our partners is not equivalent to it being true that we oght not cheat on our partners.

The so-called 'evolutionary debunking argument' against morality arises as a result of these truths. For given that it's not sufficient for us to believe an act is wrong to make it so, ethical principles - truly to exist - require something more than mere belief in them. And all an evolutionary account is going to do is explain why it was adaptive for our ancestors to have formed such beliefs. So, the evolutionary account seems able to explain - in a parsimonious way - why it is that humans believe there are moral principles. But it does this without positing any actual moral principles (remembering that 'believing' in a principle is absolutely not sufficient to make it exist). And thus on grounds of simplicity, we should conclude that though humans are disposed to believe in the reality of moral principles, in reality there are none.

That's not a conclusion I draw, but I don't yet see a way to block it.

that 'believing' in a principle is absolutely not sufficient to make it exist — Clearbury

And thus on grounds of simplicity, we should conclude that though humans are disposed to believe in the reality of moral principles, in reality there are none. — Clearbury

Isn't an alternative perspective permissible also, that belief is sufficient to bring all kinds of social constructions/facts/actions into existence? The degree to which belief has power as an established norm is relative to the number of people who hold that belief. We don't need necessarily hold to whether moral principles "exist" but whether they have any power to justify/guide action/inaction as codes of convention.

Believing that you and everyone else should stop at a traffic intersection permits a kind of organized reality that wouldn't happen without a consensus.

Your philosophical position is the attempt to either represent a convention/standard or establish one in the way Seeker is trying argue for the adoption of vague principles cherry picked from a picture of evolution.

Isn't an alternative perspective permissible also, that belief is sufficient to bring all kinds of social constructions/facts/actions into existence? — Nils Loc

My claim was about moral principles. It is about those that it is beyond serious dispute do not come into being through simply believing in them.

We can describe conventions within a society, but those are not moral principles. Such descriptions will not be normative. ('People in Peru have a tradition of burping after meals' is not a normative statement. "You ought to burp after a meal in Peru because they have a tradition of doing so" is a normative statement.

And they certainly won't be moral principles, as whether the conventions are right or wrong remains an open question.

I am not cherry picking or anything of the sort. I am simply explaining why there's a problem here and why - other things being equal - an evolutionary account seems to threaten the reality of moral principles.

Agreed: Believing in something does not determine that it is true.

It seems important to me to distinguish between two types of truth. The truth about the physical and natural world is determined by science, which also includes disciplines like sociology, economics, psychology, etc. In matters that are not empirically observable, it is philosophy that seeks to find the truth, primarily through reasoning and coherence.

Agreed: A belief is sufficient to explain a behaviour
— Clearbury

Ethical principles are normative — Clearbury

I understand that some are, when incorporated into laws, regulations, or codes, while others are not, as they are general guidelines whose application depends on interpretation and consensus.

I will now attempt to align our positions:

We must consider the timescale in which we are operating. When I discuss the great trends of evolution (GTE), I refer to 4.6 billion years. Ethical principles (which do not exist without consciousness) date back, at most, 200,000 years, and very likely less than 50,000 years.

GTE are not beliefs, but realities established by science. These trends affect us and will not change soon. At this point, ethical principles do not come into play.

It is only in the last phase of evolution (less than 0.001% of the elapsed time) that intelligence and consciousness give rise to the formulation of ethical principles. These principles aim to define universal criteria to facilitate human coexistence. Your comments, some of which I agree with, refer to this short period of time.

In the OP’s thesis, I proposed that evolution contained ethical principles. Throughout the debate, I acknowledge that a direct relationship cannot be established between evolutionary trends and ethical principles. I reformulate the proposal as follows:

• Humans must respect and adapt to GTE, because they are powerful, they condition us, we cannot change them, and they will not change.
• It seems absurd for ethical principles to contradict evolutionary trends, that is, to carry within them the seeds of conflict with nature and its tendencies.
• Most ethical principles are guidelines; very few are normative.
• Interpretation is individual. It is up to us whether humanity progresses peacefully or destroys itself.

All this forms a paradigm that, in my view, helps explain what is happening in humanity:

1. Throughout history, there have been multiple attempts to define universal ethical principles. From philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, and Kant to more recent approaches such as Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, many arrive at similar conclusions, albeit expressed in different words and perspectives. Likewise, organizations like the UN, in its Declaration of Human Rights or principles of sustainability, define similar values.

2. Science has shown that Earth has followed specific GTE, such as the propensity for life, coexistence in diversity, mutual dependence, and freedom. These trends, while subject to some volatility, point in a direction that ethical principles also seek: facilitating coexistence and human development. It is difficult to imagine ethical principles that directly oppose GTE without endangering our survival. It’s easier to publicly explain and propose a behaviour starting from GTE than from philosophers’ theories.

3. Until the emergence of free, intelligent humans (some with power), no one openly challenged these trends. However, certain human behaviours’ (such as starting wars, resisting diversity, or fostering political confrontation) interfere with these trends, hindering their consolidation and putting humanity's peaceful progress at risk. In my opinion, this is the core of the problem.

4. Within this framework, human freedom fits perfectly. It is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it allows for progress and the creation of ethical principles; on the other, it can lead to destruction if we choose to act against GTE and universal ethical principles.

Respecting the great trends of evolution and formulating ethical principles aligned with them constitute a useful paradigm for interpreting humanity’s current challenges. However, the key lies in how we use our freedom: will we employ it to build a peaceful and progressive humanity, or to undermine the very foundations of our survival?

However, certain human behaviours’ (such as starting wars, resisting diversity, or fostering political confrontation) interfere with these trends, hindering their consolidation and putting humanity's peaceful progress at risk. — Seeker25

How often in history was the motivation for war to acquire resources on one side and to defend those resources on the other. If we go back to the cod eating capelin predatory event, it is a conflict driven by the instinct to eat. Why isn't this tantamount to a kind of war in nature?

Our consumption, the effects of a vast amount of free energy exploitation, is a trade-off we don't easily control as a species anyway.

Folks in my locality are pursuing a solution to slow down another great predatory event of Oryctes rhinoceros, an epidemic of massive horned beetle. The beetle eats the hearts of large palms. I have to inject palm trees with imidicloprid (neonicatinoid) to try and save them. Funnily enough, palm damage almost looks like the palms have been shot up by a gun (burrow holes everywhere). My intuition is that insecticide is bad idea because all pollinators that visit palms (principally honey bees) will be negatively impacted, leading to a further loss in bio diversity. Or we could see this as a kind of new selection pressure which these pollinators will have to overcome. Many insects can successfully gain resistance to insecticides via natural selection, but an empirical picture of what is going on is not gathered by anyone who is fighting to save their palms.

The anthropocene is an age of extinction caused by the human need to conserve and expand itself (in all dimensions we desire to conserve and expand). For nature to even picture itself, as if we could be a steward of control, perhaps required a tremendous level of energy exploitation. The trade-offs and fall out of that event are ongoing.



I've been dragged into war by these magnificent bastards. They are discussing where to find the best palms (anywhere they find them). Luckily our family members do not include species of palms. Are you team palm, or team beetle, or is this a parochial problem which you have no solutions for? How does your GETs help guide my decision and how will it convince my boss to incur a financial loss for a moral cause? If you had an optimal solution, I wouldn't have the power or incentive to implement it anyway.

I do not see that you've really addressed my point.

This is, I take it, a paradigm example of a non-normative judgement: Jane is disposed to do X.

This, by contrast, is a paradigm example of a normative judgement: Jane is morally obliged to do X.

An evolutionary account of how we have come to be as we are is only going to justify judgements of the first sort, not the second.

In order for it to be true that moral principles exist, then it needs to be the case that some judgements of the second sort are true. But there is simply no reason to think any of them will be if the evolutionary account does no more than describe how we might have come to be disposed to believe in such principles and to make corresponding judgments.

This is precisely why evolutionary accounts of our development are held to present a challenge to the reality of morality. For again, even though there is a dispute over exactly what it would take for moral principles really to exist, there is no dispute that our own beliefs in them are not sufficient to make them exist. And so as the evolutionary account is only going to explain how we have acquired the beliefs - and acquired the beliefs without us having to posit the existence of what they are aboout - it is going to debunk those beliefs.

Moral beliefs rank alongside religious beliefs in being beliefs that we can provide evolutionary explanations for without having to posit their objects. And in both cases, the beliefs are not vindicated, but debunked.