Is evolution adequate for explaining ethics

[PetraG]

You should understand that humans are unique. Animals do not do what some humans will do. They don’t build cities, for example.

I know that in my lifetime there have been discovered that other living beings have capacities once thought to belong only to humans.
We are unique because by the gift of Providence we are made in the image and likeness of God. In a way, our dignity has nothing to do with capacity, for we cannot lose our dignity by losing any or all of our capacities. A human incapable of doing anything, totally helpless, has a dignity that the animals do not have, no matter how capable. Having said that, our capacity to be moral actors does depend on abilities that other animals do not have. If we lose those capacities, we lose culpability for actions that would otherwise be immoral.

 

[edwest211]

And the current debate revolves around false reasoning regarding morality and the difference between moral and immoral actions taken by humans. I watched as morality, especially sexual morality, gradually came apart in the United States.

 

[PetraG]

And the current debate revolves around false reasoning regarding morality and the difference between moral and immoral actions taken by humans. I watched as morality, especially sexual morality, gradually came apart in the United States.

My point was not that morality is biological. My point was that the capacity for morality is biological.
As I wrote, the point didn’t depend on whether that capacity is considered something that evolved or merely a matter of differing taxonomy. The point is the unique biological capacities of humans are required in order to attain a moral code and to live a moral life. When the biological capacity is missing, people are not culpable for their actions, even if they were at one time.

A dog can be trained to act in a certain way, but that doesn’t mean that a “good dog” is a “moral dog.”