Q&A: Valid Morality Is Begging the Question
Valid Morality Is Begging the Question
Question
When you speak about “valid morality,” you are assuming from the outset that some entity gives “validity” to universal moral laws.
In practice, evolution causes us to behave morally because that is how we survive, and individuals who were less moral survived less.
Now you say: suppose there is a person who does not want to behave according to what evolution has ingrained in him—why be angry at him?
Because “anger” too is an emotion, and emotions are an evolutionary product. I am angry at a murderer because evolution has ingrained in me morality, emotions, and a sense of condemnation toward someone who threatens a properly functioning society.
Answer
I’ve answered this many times. The argument from morality is “theological,” or “revealing.” That is, it addresses someone who assumes that there is valid morality, and tells him that if so, then there is God. If you do not think there is valid morality, the argument is not addressed to you. Exactly like any philosophical argument that appeals only to someone who accepts its premises.
If you think there is no valid morality and that your feelings are illusions—the argument is not addressed to you.