Many atheists point to natural selection as being an objective source for morality. To sum it up, morals are a product of evolution, and they help ensure our survival. Good acts or behavior are simply those that promote our survival while the bad acts go against that.
I want to give a few objections/questions to this and let those serve as the topic of this thread.
Objections:
1. Evolution is not about our survival but the survival of every organism. In other words, every organism follows natural selection. How can we use natural selection as a guide when things evolve that can kill humans, like viruses, other species (stronger or more superior than us)? How can we know that we are supposed to survive as opposed to some other organism? It would seem that even if we follow natural selection that it does not guarantee our survival.
2. If natural selection is a guide, then how can we reliably know which acts are good or bad. Some Roman emperors engaged in pederasty (sexual activity with young boys) and that empire lasted hundreds of years. Why couldn't we have known from day one that pederasty was wrong? During the practice, it would've seemed right given the fact that the empire was flourishing. How would scientists go about figuring out these morals in an objective way?
I want to give a few objections/questions to this and let those serve as the topic of this thread.
Objections:
1. Evolution is not about our survival but the survival of every organism. In other words, every organism follows natural selection. How can we use natural selection as a guide when things evolve that can kill humans, like viruses, other species (stronger or more superior than us)? How can we know that we are supposed to survive as opposed to some other organism? It would seem that even if we follow natural selection that it does not guarantee our survival.
2. If natural selection is a guide, then how can we reliably know which acts are good or bad. Some Roman emperors engaged in pederasty (sexual activity with young boys) and that empire lasted hundreds of years. Why couldn't we have known from day one that pederasty was wrong? During the practice, it would've seemed right given the fact that the empire was flourishing. How would scientists go about figuring out these morals in an objective way?