Thread by @EveKeneinan

@Friended4Ever

It appears to me you are both wrong in the recent debate re: objective morality.

But here are a couple points I think you may find useful:

Peter Geach
W. D. Ross
C. S. Lewis

@Friended4Ever His argument that “if human beings disappeared, morality would disappear with them; THEREFORE all morality is subjective” is invalid.

If it were valid, this would work: “If human beings disappeared, KNOWLEDGE would disappear with them; THEREFORE all knowledge is subjective.”

@Friended4Ever He seems to be claiming that there is nothing stable enough in human nature to ground morality. This is wrong.

You appear to be saying that human nature is sufficiently constant enough to ground morality. This is half-right.
i

@Friended4Ever To ground morality, human nature needs to be more than “a phase” in evolutionary history.

Human nature has to be NORMATIVE, that is, something we can read off from intelligibly how we OUGHT to act.

An evolutionary account can’t ultimately supply the normativity.

@Friended4Ever As Lewis sardonically points out, the “overall process” of the universe appears to be toward the extinction of all life—therefore why not take murder and suicide as our duties, if our duties arise from “obeying the natural process”?

@Friended4Ever To take human biological evolution as the standard appears to be an inexplicable bias. Why should THAT be normative as opposed to “what the universe as a hold is doing in its overall process” (which appears to the the entropic breakdown of everything).