Bridging the is/ought gap (Explaining objective morality to brainlets)

Thanks to Jake Colvin of Pexels for providing the background image for the thumbnail. He's got a fair bit of skill as a photographer.

[ZekeMagnar]

It seems as though you only (and conveniently) pointed to flourishing. How about destruction? If evolution is what defines morality, then you can't pick and choose parts of evolution to justify your view. You have to use the entire process, which includes (but of course is not limited to) natural selection. There's nothing stopping anyone from holding to an opposing view as being equally as "moral", according to your own standard.

For example, if societies decided to sterilize disabled people by pointing to natural selection and using that as an example to end the life of the weak, since nature also filters out any element that is weak and doesn't help the evolutionary process, then there wouldn't be anything objectively wrong with that according to your worldview. Since "flourishing" (or ensuring the physically healthiest population) is what you say is the objective of evolution, then genocide could (and even should) be taken up by a group of people - against another group of people - according to that same exact standard. In other words, to insure that only the strongest survive. Is this not an equally valid view from a naturalistic point of view? Do you believe that there's a counter argument against that from a materialist standpoint?

[clarkwilmerding]

1)Human beings flourish if we act a certain way.

Human beings ought to flourish

One here would be the is claim
Two would be the Ought claim
This still falls pray to Humes argument

[adeimantusglaucon]

"morality is an emergent feature of evolution" - naturalistic fallacy, anyone?
C'mon, man - either fix Hume's guillotine or read some more -

[GladiumSpiritus]

You forgot to put the audio in the right ear.