Emily: Your feeling that 'negating the right to existence' is wrong is the same as human nature, who does not feel that way? Only the right to existence is not and never will be equal as long as people are different and therefore not equal, for example a psychotic murderer does not have the same right to existence as a child, something that has surely evolved to protect the elements that should enable a society to work and discard what will destroy it.

A recent maternity test invention may make the reason for the evolved behaviour obsolete but it doesn't change the evolved brain, unless maternity testing was around in 100,000 BC that is. People don't think 'i want to murder X because it protects my paternal investment', they feel jealousy, hatred and rage, they don't know or think why. This makes whatever inventions we come up with irrelevant except in the context of future evolved brains, which is another concept in doubt anyway if you agree with the 'we've stopped evolving because everyone now survives to re-produce' theory.

The evolved ethical cue is difficult to distinguish from culturally influenced belief. Culturally influenced beliefs can tap in to primitive 'group' mentality so fiercely that one would happily delete comments and refuse to partake in genuine debate of them. In order to discover what is an evolved ethical cue one must look at human behaviour and belief systems over time and cultures, and discover common links between them. To distinguish the ethical from fashion/culture should be the aim.

To discover that you are wrong and to willingly challenge your own ideas is the essence of finding the 'truth' – however close we can get to it. You have inspired me to start my own blog, thank you.

I think it's fair to say that every point I've ever made can be made more simply.

I'm particularly in agreement with you on the second example. I wasn't happy with it when I wrote this and agree that it needs some work.

Thank you for your apt analysis.

I'm particularly in agreement with you on the second example. I wasn't happy with it when I wrote this and agree that it needs some work.

Thank you for your apt analysis.

In any case, I pretty much agree with the post but your Hume-acceptable argument below looks unnecessarily spurious, because you've left out a few premises:

A) People evolved psychologically under politically egalitarian hunter-gatherer arrangements (factual premise).
B) Authoritarian structures are wrong because they limit freedom (ethical premise).
C) Imposing authoritarian structures on people is wrong (ethical conclusion).

Which would seem to require the addition of something like:
Ai) Because people evolved under and adapted to egalitarian arrangements, authoritarian structures tend to limit our freedom.
Otherwise it's not clear at all what the factual elements of your argument are supposed to be doing, since you gain just as valid an argument from B and C alone.
–

Also the following argument seems to have a few problems:
D) Human nature is shaped by evolution (factual premise).
E) Judgments of right and wrong are made based on evolved biases and influences (ethical premise).
F) Examining human nature can lead us to insight on right and wrong (ethical conclusion).

E isn't an ethical premise, it's just a factual premise, that one of the elements of human nature that is shaped by evolution is our moral judgement. Note that *judgements* of right/wrong aren't right/wrong. Facts about our moral judgements do not necessarily tell us anything about the ostensible objects of those judgements. Thus F doesn't follow from E. The best you could get is a factual conclusion from factual premise E: Examining human nature can lead us to insight on judgements of right and wrong. Alternatively you might say that it can lead us to insight about our *concepts* of right and wrong, but this tells us nothing whatsoever about right and wrong.

For example, let us say that evolution influenced our disposition to believe in witches, fate, God, magic, the Unclean etc. Examining the relevant evolved biases and influences that influence our judgements about these supernatural elements, may reveal to us various things about said judgements, but it doesn't necessarily lead us to any conclusions concerning the supernatural things about which we are making judgements.

I can say with gruff experience that it is possible to over think some things.

Perhaps the expectations of faithful monogamy has made the cost of sex too high. A simple way to solve both the rape and murder scenario you describe is to reduce the cost of sex, e.g. legalize prostitution.

No, it's not. 🙂

Yes. Much of the foundational work is based directly on game theory.

*Hamilton's 'The genetical evolution of social behaviour' from 1964 [pdf]
*Trivers' contribution 'Parental investment and sexual selection' in the book 'Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man' from 1972.
*Axelrod's 'The Evolution of Cooperation' from 1981