Hi Chris,
What about the argument from the evolutionary atheist that evolution explains morality. For example people don’t stab someone in the stomach because they have empathy. They know that stabbing someone would cause a unpleasant response. So pain is “bad” and we try to avoid it so we can survive together.
Thank you,
Svy
____________________
Svy,
The argument you offered is exceedingly bad. I am not sure whether or not it fairly represents the argument you have in mind, but I will briefly respond to it as you have presented it.
For example people don’t stab someone in the stomach because they have empathy.
It is simply not the case that people don’t stab other people in the stomach. It happens all the time. So that claim is false. Whether or not people stab other people in the stomach pertains to description, not prescription; even if it is the case that people never stab other people, it would not follow that it ought to be the case that people never stab other people. If metaethical theory ultimately rests upon empathy then it is based upon emotional feelings alone, or preferences, or is subjective, and so on. There are numerous unacceptable consequences which follow. Feelings and metaethics are very different from one another. As evidenced by my first point, not everyone shares the empathy in question.
They know that stabbing someone would cause a unpleasant response.
Not everyone knows that stabbing someone will cause an unpleasant response. Small children and mentally handicapped people may not know the aforementioned information. So that claim is false. Whether or not someone has an unpleasant response pertains to description, not prescription; even if it is the case that someone has an unpleasant response, it would not follow that it ought not be the case that someone has an unpleasant response. If metaethical theory ultimately rests upon unpleasantness then it is based upon physical feelings alone, or preferences, or is subjective, and so on. There are numerous unacceptable consequences which follow. Feelings and metaethics are very different from one another.
So pain is “bad” and we try to avoid it so we can survive together.
The claim that pain is “bad” uses “bad” in an equivocal fashion. Pain may be “bad” in some sense, but not in the sense that it is morally bad. The latter sense is the one we are after. Not everyone experiences pain in the same way. One man’s pain is another man’s pleasure. Some people are more tolerant of pain than others. The case can be made that pain is good. It warns us that something is wrong. Think of a man who cannot feel pain in his hand. He sets it on the stove and burns his flesh off. Or worse. Even if pain is bad, it can be used in doing good. Stabbing someone in the stomach could be a painful, yet good action to take. Perhaps even a morally praiseworthy action. Consider the caesarean section. Or any other surgical procedure you like that involves cutting open the abdomen. Some people intend to inflict pain on others and/or themselves. So people do not try to avoid pain and that claim is false. The claim that people try to avoid pain pertains to description, not prescription; even if it is the case that people try to avoid pain, it would not follow that it ought to be the case that people avoid pain. Avoiding pain does not necessarily lead to survival. Sometimes the opposite is the case, as shown above. The alleged result of survival pertains to description, not prescription; even if it is the case that we survive, it would not follow that it ought to be the case that we should survive. Someone might even make the argument that not all people should survive. Indeed, not all people do! There are various scenarios offered by evolutionary thought wherein people and people groups not surviving is crucial for the survival of the human race as a whole.
Grace,
Chris
Leave a Reply