Ethical statements ("one should/should not do X") are expressions of subjective preference ("I want/don't want people to do X"). They don't refer to objects in the world; they refer to subjective states of mind. For an ethical statement to be true means for the person who expresses it to really have that subjective preference, nothing more.
If two people have different ethical principles, i.e. different subjective preferences, neither can "prove" to the other that their principles are wrong. This would be akin to trying to prove to someone that his taste in food or music is wrong. If people have different ethical principles, either can only try to persuade the other. In the same way one might try to persuade a friend that, yes, classical music is actually pretty awesome, just listen to it for a while, etc. It's a matter of shaping subjective preferences, not rationally proving anything.
If people have the same ethical principles (IOW, the same
ends), then rational argumentation becomes possible over
means. If we both believe that "aggression is wrong," for instance, we can debate the which is the best social arrangement for minimizing aggression. And there is an objectively correct answer to this question.
This is not true.
An atheist can believe "aggression is wrong" as fervently as you can believe that God exists.
Theism is not necessary for ethics.
That's nothing against theism; I have nothing critical to say of it.
It all depends on what you believe your God wants you do to which determines whether your religion is good or bad, from my point of view.
If you believe that your God wants you to behave in a libertarian fashion, that works for me just as well as if you were an atheist libertarian.
@
A Son of Liberty
So, to your question, evolution is not a threat to libertarian ethics. It may be a threat to a particular type of libertarian ethics based on religion, if that religion is undermined by evolution, but libertarian ethics need not be based on religion at all.
Connect With Us