The most compelling argument within evolutionary ethics to reject would
be in its lack of value surrounding human dignity and worth. Authors
McQuilkin and Copan express the difficulties naturalists face when
attempting to argue for morals and human value. Considering that
naturalists assume all things have essentially come into existence through
a random and worthless material process, a center point of value is hard
to define.[1]&By asserting that human dignity and value are mere
assumptions derived from the evolutionary makeup of genes, the
naturalist must then conclude why value should be assumed out of
something valueless.[2]&Evolutionary ethics itself undermines morality and
value if it all falls under some sort of genetic construct. Either it’s a
created illusion of human worth or human worth has not always been
present from the very beginning. In either case, human value and moral is
not a guaranteed byproduct for the naturalist who subscribes to
evolutionary ethics.
&
I don’t think that the authors overstate the inevitability of evolutionary
ethics. Those who lack a true understanding of the& &will always Imago Dei
seek to find direction, meaning, and purpose from somewhere else.
