Abstract: No morality? No problem.

Objective moral truths do not exist. As far as I’m concerned this was proved by J.L Mackie in the 1970s when he introduced error theory. However, in the last forty years, the evidence for moral skepticism has grown.¬†Evolutionary debunking arguments aims to criticize belief in moral realism from a scientifically skeptical angle. Great work has been advanced in this school of thought by philosophers like Richard¬†Joyce. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, I will provide an argument for evolutionary debunking. I will do this by drawing on evidence from affective neuroscience (Jaak Panksepp), cognitive neuroscience (Jonathan Haidt), and gene-culture evolution (Kevin Laland). I will address the strongest arguments against evolutionary debunking, creating a list of what I must prove to leave moral realists (stance independent and stance independent ones) with nothing left to stand on. I will attempt with great enthusiasm, though I frankly doubt I’ll be able to do this a an undergraduate student. The second part of the essay will focus on what to do once morality has been lost. I will explore various options: constructivist morality, nonmoral morality, prudence, and egoism. Then, drawing on legal studies and governance models, figure out what a world that recognizes objective moral truths are not real would look like. Spoiler alert: we all aren’t going to die or torture each other.