Wesley Huff

can't actually give you an explanation for what the moral implications are in that instance.

Let me give you an example.

Sort of.

You read something like the origin of species, though.

Like, Darwin himself...

when he's articulating the survival of the fittest, there is an aspect of you shouldn't take care of those people because they're actually bringing the genetic gene pool down.

So we see even in like the eugenics movement, pulling a lot from individuals like Darwin in order to validate the fact that in order to carry on your selfish DNA, this idea of taking care of the marginalized

and those on the fringes of society, and those who are the lesser thans, is not evolutionary advantageous.

Because survival of the fittest implies that the fittest should survive.

And these are obviously not the fittest.

It's actually a Judeo-Christian ethic in the understanding of everybody having equal value.

that we should be taking care of people because they have intrinsic value, not extrinsic value, that allows us to then even import an idea of taking care of those who are not necessarily specifically related to me and mine.

And it comes back to, okay, where are we grounding this objectivity in?

Because there have been societies that have attempted to do it in like a might is right aspect, and you ground the objectivity of –

what we say is right in a society that says this is better for the most amount of individuals within a particular community.

Yes.

I think it's largely our modern perspective living in a society where we are starting on second base already with our moral perspectives, right?

We have inherited all of these moral categories because of our Judeo-Christian ethic.

If you look at basically every society prior to this or even societies in the East –

That's not a given, right?