Evolutionary Theory Can Adequately Account For An Objective Morality

In the past to this point in time in history a great number of questions have been asked and answered by philosophers and scientists. However ever great those questions have been, no other question is more relevantly practical than the question being asked in the field of evolutionary ethics by scientists and philosophers. Namely, can evolutionary ethics amalgamate and synthesize the ever so distant gap between philosophy and the natural sciences. The main contention of this debate will be the main concern of this debate—I will be playing the Devil’s Advocate by contending that the main contention of this debate is most plausibly true. My opponents role in this debate is, therefore, the opposite.Theistic philosophers and theologians have argued by declaring that morality is most appropriately and credibly grounded in the nature of an all-Loving Deity. Theologians, philosophers and scientists—specialists who affirm this conviction—ranging from molecular biophysicist Dr. Alister McGrath to mathematician and philosopher Dr. John Lennox have argued determinedly for the truth of their ethical conclusions against prominent atheists, such as, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, who affirm the contrary. William Lane Craig, a distinguished Christian philosopher and theologian, has been recorded saying, [1]‘On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.’ – William Lane CraigHowever, naturalistic scientists like Sam Harris—a scientist who denies the existence of God as a plausible explanation of an objective foundation for morality—argue against; rather, than for the traditional theistic position by positing that an objective morality can be derived from a statistical utilitarian framework. The most notable principle of the utilitarian theorists position is that the ethical theory concludes that an objective morality can be justified by deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ by synthesizing the success rate of communal statistics with our biological disposition, i.e., what is helpful for the survival of an organism is, therefore, evidentially successful and qualitatively good for the organism and its community in question—this moral theory is contended methodologically tenable. Sam Harris has been noted praising and affirming The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity. The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a morality, ethical code and or maxim that support the following:[2]1 One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself 2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated The only argument I will be presenting is based on a communal ethic of utilitarianism; a communal ethic of loving reciprocity. Thus, my first argument is as follows, 1. Natural selection will ensure the survival of the fittest as it is a key mechanism of adaptive evolution. 2. Person A ought to help person B from starvation as it will certify a greater chance of being for both groups if they were to work in unity with one another. 3. Therefore, fellow individuals ought to ethically aid person B so that the greatest of all goods can be assured comprehensively for that of the community. There will only be two rounds in this debate. I have set forth what I believe to be the most powerful argument for the utilitarian theorist’s position. Con will merely have to argue contrary while affirming the plausibility of his position in contrast with that of the position I am arguing for. I wish you all the best of luck. Bibliography: [1] http://www.leaderu.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...