Reducing “a biological perspective on ethics” to “a description of how human ethics works” doesn’t seem quite right to me. Naturalistic ethics isn’t just concerned with the “how” of human morality. Things like “why” questions, shared other-oriented behaviours, social insect cooperation and chimpanzees are absolutely on the table.
Your original description was one which only makes sense regarding descriptive ethics- a topic in which I agree with the validity of your description. Prescriptive ethics, by contrast, is best described by my original description.
Reducing “a biological perspective on ethics” to “a description of how human ethics works” doesn’t seem quite right to me. Naturalistic ethics isn’t just concerned with the “how” of human morality. Things like “why” questions, shared other-oriented behaviours, social insect cooperation and chimpanzees are absolutely on the table.
Your original description was one which only makes sense regarding descriptive ethics- a topic in which I agree with the validity of your description. Prescriptive ethics, by contrast, is best described by my original description.