In an inappropriately named and pointless (if correct, which it is not) article, David Brooks writes
In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. Or as Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia memorably wrote, “The emotions are, in fact, in charge of the temple of morality, and … moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.”
The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution…
Speak for yourself, Mr Brooks. It may well be that you don’t use reason to reach your moral (or any other) ideas. And given the mish-mash of incompatible ideas you write about, that seems very likely. But don’t make the claim that no one does. And if your ideas are merely a product of evolution, why bother to write this article? Oh I see, it too is just a product of evolution. But my ideas are not determined by evolution and so I refuse to be influenced by the evolutionary force of your article.