I started this in another thread. The bulk of the original post:
It seems that, under the evolutionary model, ethics or morality (there must be a difference, but I am too lazy to look it up) must be considered one of three ways:
Ethics evolved. The moral standards of humans are another product of evolution, and in some way ensure the prolonged survival of our species.
Ethics are invalid. That is, since each different animal species has its own behavioral standard, there really aren’t any “rights” and “wrongs.” By an evolutionary standard, the “right” ethics are the ones which ensure species survival, so you can go ahead and experiment.
Is that any different than #1? I think it is, slightly.
3.Ethics Arrived. Somewhere along the line of human evolution, the became graced with a higher moral conciousness.
I don’t know who would actually hold to that one, but it is a possibility.
Comments? Did I miss or mis-represent a possibility?
And the first response:
It seems to me that you can only hold two positions: either certain things are always right and other things are always wrong, or that right and wrong depend on influencing factors.
If you believe in absoloute right and wrong, it is a pretty sure bet that you believe morality distinguishes us from other animals. Therefore it seems to me that absoloutists are generally not evolutionists. If somebody does want to discuss the possibility of being both, great; but for this post I will presume that we are only dealing with relativists. (I did not make this presumption in my first post).