[jennyp]

Yes, but this is due in part to many evolutionary theorists, such as the sociobiologist, who continually insist on using evolutionary theory in order to make what are essentially moral and ethical points. But again, this is absurd, since evolutionary theory cannot be the foundation of morality -- nay, cannot even be the ontological foundation for the condition of possibility for morality -- because, by definition, it is amoral. To make it the foundation of morality is, in effect, to dispel morality as morality. On this score, the creationists have a point, but they might be better served through an immanent critique of evolutionary theories of morality (that is, a critique of evolutionary theory of morality on its own terms), because this is ultimately a more gratifying argument.

Well, you can't base morality upon morality itself. Morality then becomes a free-floating abstraction: "You must be moral because morality demands it. And this 'morality that demands it,' um, just is."

Morality ultimately exists for selfish reasons. It's just that morality, being a set of behavioral principles, recognizes that our actions have consequences, and the relationship between actions & consequences is based on a non-contradictory world. (Otherwise principles would be useless.) We only think about morality because we are able to conceive of the future, and to integrate our experiences into a larger, coherent model of the world & how it all works. The reason that moral decisions often seem hard to follow is that often our long-term, principled, enlightened self interest is very different than our short-term, ad-hoc desires.

So to say that evolutionary theory fails as a foundation for morality because it itself is amoral, misses the mark, IMO. The ultimate reason for having morality in the first place is the preservation of that which we value. Our biggest & most immediate value is our own lives, but we also value the lives of our loved ones, etc., even (for some people) up to all humanity & far into the future.

[cornelis]

Well, you can't base morality upon morality itself. Morality then becomes a free-floating abstraction: "You must be moral because morality demands it. And this 'morality that demands it,' um, just is."

IOW, morality becomes nature again. Morality ultimately exists for selfish reasons.

Damn nature again.

Here are the centers for morality that are often confused: nature, ego, reason, society, immanent divinity, trancendent divinity.

[bdeaner]

So to say that evolutionary theory fails as a foundation for morality because it itself is amoral, misses the mark, IMO. The ultimate reason for having morality in the first place is the preservation of that which we value. Our biggest & most immediate value is our own lives, but we also value the lives of our loved ones, etc., even (for some people) up to all humanity & far into the future.

When I say that evolutionary theory fails to found morality because it is amoral, I mean to imply that evolutionary principles are indifferent to notions of right and wrong, good and bad. Natural selection has no telos; it is a blind process with no intrinsic purpose. Species evolve by accident, simply because certain characteristics helped a species to survive a harsh climate at a particular point in time. But they do not 'evolve' in the sense of making progress toward some ultimate purpose or Good.

Human beings, on the other hand, care. We care about the future, and not merely survival. We have purpose. Natural selection does not. And it is this sense of meaning and purpose -- this basis in care -- that is the foundation for morality, not natural selection. Care may be an accidental by-product of natural selection, but human care transcends the blind, mechanistic bumbling of natural selection by becoming purposeful. Because human beings are purposeful, we can make progress, and we can judge a behavior as good or bad depending upon whether or not we believe it helps or hinders our progress toward the Good; as such, behavior becomes moral or immoral. But natural select does not progress; it just happens. It is amoral.