In the Chronicle of Higher Education today, philosopher Michael Ruse concludes:
“The scientific claim is that morality is natural. It is an adaptation produced by natural selection to make us good cooperators.”
Yet the “morality” that Ruse describes, and thinks he explains, has little to do with what just about every person actually thinks morality is. According to Ruse, moral beliefs are emotional sentiments that get us to cooperate in kin-survival-enhancing ways. Practically no one who has ever lived means anything like that when they say that, for example, (1) it’s wrong to torture children for the fun of it. That claim has exactly nothing to do with the kin-selection claptrap that Ruse and many other evolutionists find so persuasive. And whether it was advantageous or disadvantageous for our kin-survival for us to believe,
it would still be wrong to torture children for the fun of it. It may not quite be a psychological disorder not to be able to get this point, but it is surely the Philosophical equivalent of a Psychological disorder!
They says that “we are composed of matter and energy, therefore our actions are determined by that matter and energy”
Darwinian says “if you take Darwin theory seriously then the idea of free will is complete illustration” therefore he says “its cruel to prosecute people for crime” but wait a mint !
Where this CRUEL” came from he makes moral judgement!
Clarence barrow (1920) he says that morality is a myths when to boys killed a boy for thrill he tries to save them and give his reasoning and said “Is dickie lobe to blame because of infinite force that were at work producing him age before he was born? Is he blamed because his machine is imperfect”
this is the result of the evolutionary process.
He said “no guilty by the reason of year of evolutionary selection for aggressive.”
*FACE-PALM*
So what do you suggest? What should morality be? You said what it is not.