Another way to end up with reliable moral beliefs would be if they do provide an evolutionary benefit.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. However there is no structural reason to think that most possible sets of moral facts would have evolutionary benefit. You outline one option where there would be a connection, however that this is the story behind morality would be surprisingly lucky on our part.
We would also need to acknowledge the possibility that evolution has just tricked us into thinking that common sense morality is correct when really moral facts are all about maximising the number of paperclips and we’re all horribly failing to do what is moral.
It’s only if there is some sort of guiding control over evolution that we could have reason to trust that we were in the ‘jammy’ case and not the ‘evolution tricking us case’?
I wholeheartedly agree with this. However there is no structural reason to think that most possible sets of moral facts would have evolutionary benefit. You outline one option where there would be a connection, however that this is the story behind morality would be surprisingly lucky on our part.
We would also need to acknowledge the possibility that evolution has just tricked us into thinking that common sense morality is correct when really moral facts are all about maximising the number of paperclips and we’re all horribly failing to do what is moral.
It’s only if there is some sort of guiding control over evolution that we could have reason to trust that we were in the ‘jammy’ case and not the ‘evolution tricking us case’?