Is there any credible argument at all against the view that humans

>>9418676
no

>>9418676
That's a dumb hypothesis because our moral intuition isn't beneficial for the survival of the species.

Darwinism is a weak argument to bring into the question of morality because clearly humans constantly engage in activities that often diminish their chances of procreation and survival. If anything, modern society exists in direct opposition to natural selection - we take care of the weak, unhealthy, stupid, frigid, the elderly

>>9418676
>>>/his/

sage

>>9418713

Wow, I have never seen OP so thoroughly BTFO ever.

>>9418676
The telos or goal of humanity is yet to be determined. To try and reduce it to mechanistic darwinian processes is just one of many choices one can make. materialistic reduction and 'rationalised' economic calculus go hand in hand, and are no more 'natural' or just than spiritual or utopian yearnings. If everything is reduced to 'biology' and economic calculation, this means humanity will have to be destroyed as soon as it becomes an obstacle to capital accumulation.

>>9418713

Well nobody actually wants to do that. If you could actually choose where your taxes went, most people would probably not want to pay any taxes at all. We take care of the weak and unhealthy because our bureaucracy is set up that way, it's largely outside of our awareness.

>>9418713
You are a fucking idiot. Read some biology, even painted dogs care for the weak and elderly

>>9418723
Traditional societies take care of the weak and unhealthy all the time. You are basically just taking the atomised game theory model of humans associated with capitalism and projecting it back into history

>>9418713
The fittest actually survives by helping the weak, because the weak, given his or her condition, put more emphasis into studying which in return gives us better medicine, technology, laws, education, etc.

>>9418723
Such bureaucracy exists due a specific moral understanding. Don't switch cause and effect. Even people who don't want to pay taxes think that taking care of the weak is important.

it obviously developed because of psychedelic mushrooms.

>>9418742
How does it make him wrong? At best your point proves that humans aren't the only animals with a morality contrary to the survival of the fittest.

>>9418767
I thought at a moment I read him wrong but I didn't. He is implying that taking care of weak or elderly shouldn't happen under natural selection, well it happens. It is adaptive.

>>9418676
Are all truths humans know simply the products of an adaptive evolution? If no, then how do you distinguish between those types of facts and moral facts in the sense that evolution merely gave us the intelligence and insight into discovering true things about the world?

A better argument is Streets': if evolution is simply the survival of the fittest, there is nothing to suggest having epistemic access to moral facts is evolutionary advantageous, so even if moral facts did exist we'd have no real way of knowing. Or something like that.

>>9418713
Heh...noting personnel, kid...

>>9418723
>Well nobody actually wants to do that.

The system didn't just spontaneously appear