Evolution explains why we developed morality, just like evolution explains why we developed reasoning. That doesn't make either one meaningless. A conscious being experiencing pain is a real fact, and caring about reducing suffering is a rational conclusion from understanding conscious experience, not something that requires a supernatural authority.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
Rational conclusion still assumes reasoning tracks truth, and evolution only selects for survival, not for truth. Selected for isnβt the same as sound.
Pain being real just restates the fact. Saying itβs wrong to cause is the actual moral claim, and understanding suffering isnβt an argument for why anyoneβs bound to act on it. You keep describing the feeling like that answers the obligation question.