11 Comments
User's avatar
Lam's avatar
3hEdited

> "Biologists can’t offer evolutionary explanations without showing that traits or behavior are naturally selected when they promote the good of the organism. "

no, they need to show that the traits or behavior increase the inclusive fitness of the unit of selection, not "good" for that given organism. For example, it is an adaptive behavior among honeybees for them to sting in ways that kill them, which produces no benefit to them but makes the hive more adaptive. Similarly, octopus mothers starve themselves in the process of guarding their eggs which is bad for them but "good for their genes".

John Losoya's avatar

So, how are you doing with this "We need to find a scientific ethics if we are to break free from addiction to a morality that is the toxic brew of atavistic witch doctors"?

Other than this lame criticism, do you have this 'scientific' ethics ready for publication and dissemination? I'd love to read it.

Ben Bayer's avatar

See the link, man.

John Losoya's avatar

Reading now. I wish I could print it.

George Cervenka's avatar

Your comment is dripping with sarcasm.

John Losoya's avatar

Sorry about that. I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan. Didn't mean to come across that way. I am sincerely hoping to hear the ethics that are being proposed.

Eric Clayton's avatar

He's talking about our ethics of rational egoism tha has existed and is the only actual morality in existence. Every other one is an inversion of morality and is evil.

George Cervenka's avatar

Yes, rational egoism is the only morality that is “true”!

George Cervenka's avatar

Thank you. Suggest you check out Ben Bayer’s post on Substack “How to Build a Secular, Scientific Morality” from June 10, 2026.

John Losoya's avatar

In fairness, I did mostly understand the post as a somewhat useless childish criticism.

John Losoya's avatar

On a funny note, I suffer from terminal asshole-ism! I'm in recovery!