Naturalism provides a sound basis for morals

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for his thoughtful and provocative rebuttal. I will address each point under a separate heading. Objective Morality It appears that – and I accept the blame entirely – there has been some unnecessary confusion over the definition of “sound”. My opponent takes the initiative in defining it as reliable, in which case his rebuttal is to be expected. However, to avoid any further misunderstanding, I wish to define “sound” as: a sufficient and reasonable explanation. Thus, I will be arguing that naturalism provides a sufficient and reasonable explanation for morality as we perceive it today. My opponent is correct in stating that I hold to a relativist approach to morality. Despite this, I do not see morality by means of natural selection to be prohibiting of explaining how we arrived at our moral intuitions. Indeed, we have no objective standard by which to judge them, though this does not necessarily invalidate the concept of evolved morality. Natural Selection I understand that my opponent does not accept Darwin’s theory of evolution as a truth. However, I invite him to consider the results from the Pew Research Centre, which states how 97% of scientists agree that human life evolved over time. [1] Whilst appeal to the majority does not reveal truth, it certainly begs the question of why so many scientists have been misled, how so many could misinterpret the evidence. It also questions how ignorant eminent biologists must have been to dedicate their life to such studies; we can only conclude that Richard Dawkins had a funny-five-minutes whilst writing a five-hundred paged book documenting the evidence for evolution. [2] Reciprocal Altruism Creationtruth raises an important question with regards to how reciprocal altruism can relate to selfless altruism. It is important to become familiar with the idea of a “rule of thumb” concerning behaviour amongst animals. A similar parallel could be drawn with infertile partners; though there is a sexual desire there, it would be to no avail. Whether we restrict natural selection to acting upon what is in the gene or not, it is still plausible to suggest that an organism will feel these sexual desires in order to maximise the chance of gene preservation. Hence, the organism will feel a sexual desire towards an infertile partner despite conflicting with the intentions of natural selection. The same could be said for reciprocal altruism. A bird might be acting on the rule of thumb which precludes that “you should feed the birds in your nest.” When an unfamiliar bird finds itself in that nest, it would be likely to tend to that bird, minus the allure of reciprocation. I also fear that my opponent has restricted reciprocal altruism specifically to scenarios in which there will be a direct reciprocation. This is not always the case: Altruism occurs frequently amongst kin as a means of preserving genes. [3] Reputation plays a large part in the animal kingdom; for instance, bats will recognise those who do not pay their debts. [4] Conspicuous generosity can make an organism appear more attractive to a mate and increase the chances of other organisms offering favours. [5] Here we have three behavioural traits amongst animals that could explain altruistic behaviour amongst humans. For example, the paper Competitive Altruism suggests that: “[competitive altruism] is probably most suitable to explain more public displays of helping, like philanthropy, heroism, bystander intervention, charity work, and volunteering.” [see 5] I invite my opponent to recognise how these altruistic traits could evolve into the basic principles that we accommodate today: love your children, be charitable and act with integrity. Evolution of morality is not unknown to the human race; in my opening argument I demonstrated how racism was a norm – similar arguments could be put forward for misogyny and homophobia. Morality in survival Creationtruth proceeds to challenge my model of relativist morality. In this section he only succeeds in demonstrating that there is no actual “good” or “bad” in relativist morality, an objection with which I agree. However, if we consider my definition of “sound” from earlier, this does not refute the idea that naturalism provides an explanation for how we perceive morality. I wish to argue that it is only us as humans who attribute these kinds of labels. It is akin to aesthetics; would anything be beautiful if humans did not exist? I would argue that things are only beautiful because we, as humans, have developed the brain capacity to appreciate them. They’re not actually beautiful, it’s just our opinion. I liken this to morality. Problems with relativism When we have conceded that relativist morality does not hold any intrinsic value, we are left with problems which Creationtruth has raised. Who is to say that Hitler was wrong in exterminating the Jews? I appeal to my empathy in matters like these. Over the centuries of human civilisation, we have developed ideas of equality and justice. I will happily admit that these have been dogmatically and passively pressed by religion – graphic depictions of hell in the fifteenth century is one example. [6] Thus, we are guided by our moral conscience. Due to shared objectives in natural selection, it is not surprising that our moral principles are similar to those in our culture. Conclusion After hopefully resolving confusion on the definition of “sound”, I have refuted each point made against the case for naturalism. Until Creationtruth can provide more convincing reasons for why naturalism does not provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for morality as we perceive it, we can conclude that naturalism is a sound explanation for our morality. [1] Pew Research Centre, http://www.people-press.org... [2] http://www.amazon.co.uk... [3] Nature journal, http://www.nature.com... [4] Competitive Altruism, p8, http://professormarkvanvugt.com... [5] Competitive Altruism, p18 [6] http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk...