In this paper, I will argue that rational agents have the ability to reflect on moral beliefs that have been shaped by evolution, contrary to what Street has claimed. Her argument which shows that if there is no relation between independent moral truths and moral beliefs shaped by evolution concludes that realism is false, is thus unsound. My argument proceeds in four sections: In the first section, I will explicate Street’s argument. She argues that influences of evolution ultimately lead realists to doubt moral skepticism. In the second section, I will show that Street’s argument which relies on the premise that evolution always aims to promote survival and reproductive success is false. My objection will show one possible case of a moral…show more content… Our human minds are a product of the selective process in evolution, and it has evolved such that beliefs formed promote the survival of the human species. For example, Eskimos abandon their newborns to during harsh conditions for the survival of their tribes. This belief was a considered a norm in their culture. However, abandoning newborns in other cultures is probably not an option for them since their environment does not require them to do so to promote survival. If evolution has shaped our beliefs differently in different cultures to promote survival and reproductive success, then there is enough ground to believe that moral beliefs are likely to be affected by evolution as well (Street, 2006. Pp,…show more content… Natural selection picks those with better ability to track moral truths. In having this ability to track moral truths, it promotes humans’ survival and reproductive success (pp. 413). Under this account, realists claim that moral beliefs that promote survival and reproductive success are true because of its presence. And because we have the capacity to discern these true moral beliefs, it is advantageous to us, promoting our survival and reproductive success (Street, 2006, pp.414). This tracking relation posits itself as a scientific explanation by offering a hypothesis to account for the ongoing phenomenon (Street, 2006, pp.414). However, Street (2006) argues that the tracking account does not give a satisfactory scientific explanation by positing some independent moral truths as an answer (pp.414). Imagine if we are supposed to agree that abortion is impermissible. Clearly, most of us would not be persuaded to agree to form that moral belief simply because it is true by looking at the statistics that most agree abortion is impermissible. Adaptive link account, on the other hand, has a better scientific explanation. Under the adaptive link account, moral beliefs helped in survival and reproductive success because it helped our ancestors, not because they are true (Street, 2006, pp.415). So, if we can account for the relation without positing
