ProtoTypical writes:
Our moral behaviour is born out of the eons long evolutionary process that selected those behaviours that helped us to survive as a species. I am saying that these selections can be viewed as objectively good.
I suppose our main point of disagreement is the definition of the word "objective". I tend to think of objectivity as dealing with an object - i.e. something that
has definite qualities and/or quantities. We can objectively measure a two-by-four without knowing what it is; we're only interested in the qualities and/or quantities of the object itself.
What you're describing seems more like a collective subjectivity, a consensus of opinion based on highly subjective criteria rather than on a real-world object. We can look back on results that suited
us but what's good for us isn't necessarily "good".
ProtoTypical writes:
I was also making the point that some species are more likely to survive by virtue of their ability to survive across a range of environments and that this should put them higher up on a scale of fitness.
Some species, sure. But other species survive by being more specialized. Shouldn't that put
them on a "higher scale of fitness" too?