Objective Morality

[x1plus1x]

The question about objective morality is something that I have done a lot of thinking about.

Let me define what I mean by Objective Morality. By Objective, I mean a perspective that is not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices. In other words: outside of opinion. An example of an objective truth is "1+1=2", this is true no matter who analyzes it. When I say Morality I mean the idea of right and wrong, which is often associated with good and evil. People who are seen as lacking a moral compass are often described as committing evil acts.

It is my view that morality stems directly from a particular society. I do not believe that there is an objective morality. There is no act which can be agreed upon to be morally wrong by everyone from every civilization that ever existed.

Morality is strictly attached to society.

One big example that I can point to is murder. We in the modern world pretty much all agree that we shouldn't kill each other (although we do it anyways).. So surely murder has an objective morality.. right? Well, let me remind you of the civilizations of meso-america, where it was imperative that they murder people. Human murder is what kept the earth functioning. Human murder was institutionalized by the State as a means of continuing the society. Of course we now know that murdering people has nothing to do with the earth spinning.

If Objective Morality does exist, surely we would find it in nature. Aside from some highly evolved mammals, we see no morality in nature.
Hypothetically speaking.. How would you characterize the morality of a person who had the ability to wield the power of a hurricane? If there were a person behind the scenes controlling Katrina that killed many people and damaged an entire region of the US, what would you think of this person? (the person is nature)

Male lions will murder their own cubs for food, or to eliminate competition.
Theft, Rape, Adultery, etc are rampant in the animal kingdom.

If there is no Objective Morality, do Right and Wrong really exist? And by really exist I mean, is it something that you can separate from opinion and have it maintain it's integrity.

Morality evolved in animals because it has an advantage over no morality. It is in my best interest to ensure that my tribe stays alive and healthy. There is safety in numbers. This is where morality, and other related things such as empathy, and altruism come from.

[Tiberius47]

There is no objective morality. True, most people may say that murder is wrong, but that could be an evolutionary result of us being social animals.

[dusk]

Even if objective morality would exist it would be impossible for us to distinguish between it and subjective morality. Even if you turn to some form of authority it is always in question whether you just picked by accident the right one or if the actual right one is there to pick from. The normans couldn't pick the islamic qu'ran if they wanted to. Than there is interpretation and what does that poorly communicating authority actually want to communicate.
The end of the story is that it doesn't really matter and whenever somebody talks about objective morality all they want is that what they say/assume/understand as the right choice should be set in stone and there be no further doubt about it. It is certainty that these people seek. If you say your truth is the objective one you don't have to bother with wondering if you got it right EVER again.

If there is no Objective Morality, do Right and Wrong really exist? And by really exist I mean, is it something that you can separate from opinion and have it maintain it's integrity.

Yes they do but they have only meaning in a certain context. Without the context they are meaningless terms. I think the problem is that most people try to separate right and wrong and help them into some different realm that doesn't have anything to do with us and not depend on any of us.
Murder i.e. is wrong in a society like ours. Why because we prefer to live in a society where we don't have to worry about getting killed over anything at all. In most of Europe murder rates are so low that it doesn't even make sense to talk about trends. Yet in South Africa or some Brasilien favela they are high and most of us don't want to live there. This is IMO the only way something can be wrong or right for a person or a society.
Murder is wrong because it damages or destroys or works against the utopia that most people except sociopaths desire.
Things are wrong or right because people give a sh*t. Me wearing brown socks to blue jeans isn't wrong to me and not to most people. Some fashion freaks might see it differently but we all have to decide how much we want to let other peoples quirks dictate our live (Yes a fashion faible is a quirk in my book).

In non social situations where they aren't interdependent players who care about they treat each other there is no morality no right or wrong. Sharks is my favorite example.

[4gold]

The question about objective morality is something that I have done a lot of thinking about.

Let me define what I mean by Objective Morality. By Objective, I mean a perspective that is not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices. In other words: outside of opinion. An example of an objective truth is "1+1=2", this is true no matter who analyzes it. When I say Morality I mean the idea of right and wrong, which is often associated with good and evil. People who are seen as lacking a moral compass are often described as committing evil acts.

It is my view that morality stems directly from a particular society. I do not believe that there is an objective morality. There is no act which can be agreed upon to be morally wrong by everyone from every civilization that ever existed.

Morality is strictly attached to society.

One big example that I can point to is murder. We in the modern world pretty much all agree that we shouldn't kill each other (although we do it anyways).. So surely murder has an objective morality.. right? Well, let me remind you of the civilizations of meso-america, where it was imperative that they murder people. Human murder is what kept the earth functioning. Human murder was institutionalized by the State as a means of continuing the society. Of course we now know that murdering people has nothing to do with the earth spinning.

If Objective Morality does exist, surely we would find it in nature. Aside from some highly evolved mammals, we see no morality in nature.
Hypothetically speaking.. How would you characterize the morality of a person who had the ability to wield the power of a hurricane? If there were a person behind the scenes controlling Katrina that killed many people and damaged an entire region of the US, what would you think of this person? (the person is nature)

Male lions will murder their own cubs for food, or to eliminate competition.
Theft, Rape, Adultery, etc are rampant in the animal kingdom.

If there is no Objective Morality, do Right and Wrong really exist? And by really exist I mean, is it something that you can separate from opinion and have it maintain it's integrity.

Morality evolved in animals because it has an advantage over no morality. It is in my best interest to ensure that my tribe stays alive and healthy. There is safety in numbers. This is where morality, and other related things such as empathy, and altruism come from.

Of course morality exists outside of evolutionary processes. Morality is progressive and goal-oriented, but evolution (at least according to materialists and naturalists) is neither progressive nor goal-oriented. Directionless evolution could not be the source of morality.

Your post does not state whether you believe evolution has purpose or not. If you believe evolution does have purpose, then certainly it could be a source for morality, and the rest of your post would be consistent. However, that only pushes the question back a step. What causes purpose in evolution?

But certainly evolution plays a role in morality...it just can't be the sole source and cause of morality. What we can say about evolution and morality is that evolution rewards adaptive behavior and punishes maladaptive behavior. Directionless evolution cannot, however, explain why morality is progressive and goal-oriented.

[4gold]

The question about objective morality is something that I have done a lot of thinking about.

Let me define what I mean by Objective Morality. By Objective, I mean a perspective that is not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices. In other words: outside of opinion. An example of an objective truth is "1+1=2", this is true no matter who analyzes it. When I say Morality I mean the idea of right and wrong, which is often associated with good and evil. People who are seen as lacking a moral compass are often described as committing evil acts.

It is my view that morality stems directly from a particular society. I do not believe that there is an objective morality. There is no act which can be agreed upon to be morally wrong by everyone from every civilization that ever existed.

Morality is strictly attached to society.

One big example that I can point to is murder. We in the modern world pretty much all agree that we shouldn't kill each other (although we do it anyways).. So surely murder has an objective morality.. right? Well, let me remind you of the civilizations of meso-america, where it was imperative that they murder people. Human murder is what kept the earth functioning. Human murder was institutionalized by the State as a means of continuing the society. Of course we now know that murdering people has nothing to do with the earth spinning.

If Objective Morality does exist, surely we would find it in nature. Aside from some highly evolved mammals, we see no morality in nature.
Hypothetically speaking.. How would you characterize the morality of a person who had the ability to wield the power of a hurricane? If there were a person behind the scenes controlling Katrina that killed many people and damaged an entire region of the US, what would you think of this person? (the person is nature)

Male lions will murder their own cubs for food, or to eliminate competition.
Theft, Rape, Adultery, etc are rampant in the animal kingdom.

If there is no Objective Morality, do Right and Wrong really exist? And by really exist I mean, is it something that you can separate from opinion and have it maintain it's integrity.

Morality evolved in animals because it has an advantage over no morality. It is in my best interest to ensure that my tribe stays alive and healthy. There is safety in numbers. This is where morality, and other related things such as empathy, and altruism come from.

Morality is progressive and goal-oriented, but evolution (at least according to materialists and naturalists) is neither progressive nor goal-oriented. Directionless evolution could not be the source of morality.

Your post does not state whether you believe evolution has purpose or not. If you believe evolution does have purpose, then certainly it could be a source for morality, and the rest of your post would be consistent. However, that only pushes the question back a step. What causes purpose in evolution?

But certainly evolution plays a role in morality...it just can't be the sole source and cause of morality. What we can say about evolution and morality is that evolution rewards adaptive behavior and punishes maladaptive behavior. Directionless evolution cannot, however, explain why morality is progressive and goal-oriented.

[dusk]

Is gravity goal-oriented?
Evolution is just a mechanism but in it there is the goal of multiply more than the competition. If you argue morality is goal-oriented you are only saying that not killing each other is just a means to achieve a goal of a less cruel society with less fear of getting killed any minute. That is a goal of sorts too.

If morality was only there for the survival of man-kind its goals would effectively be the same as evolution.
I don't see how direction would change anything in the relation between morality and evolution.

Directionless evolution cannot, however, explain why morality is progressive and goal-oriented.

Don't you think you have something backwards here. In absolutist Christian dogma morality is the opposite of progressive and what is evolution if not progressive?

[x1plus1x]

The question about objective morality is something that I have done a lot of thinking about.

Let me define what I mean by Objective Morality. By Objective, I mean a perspective that is not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices. In other words: outside of opinion. An example of an objective truth is "1+1=2", this is true no matter who analyzes it. When I say Morality I mean the idea of right and wrong, which is often associated with good and evil. People who are seen as lacking a moral compass are often described as committing evil acts.

It is my view that morality stems directly from a particular society. I do not believe that there is an objective morality. There is no act which can be agreed upon to be morally wrong by everyone from every civilization that ever existed.

Morality is strictly attached to society.

One big example that I can point to is murder. We in the modern world pretty much all agree that we shouldn't kill each other (although we do it anyways).. So surely murder has an objective morality.. right? Well, let me remind you of the civilizations of meso-america, where it was imperative that they murder people. Human murder is what kept the earth functioning. Human murder was institutionalized by the State as a means of continuing the society. Of course we now know that murdering people has nothing to do with the earth spinning.

If Objective Morality does exist, surely we would find it in nature. Aside from some highly evolved mammals, we see no morality in nature.
Hypothetically speaking.. How would you characterize the morality of a person who had the ability to wield the power of a hurricane? If there were a person behind the scenes controlling Katrina that killed many people and damaged an entire region of the US, what would you think of this person? (the person is nature)

Male lions will murder their own cubs for food, or to eliminate competition.
Theft, Rape, Adultery, etc are rampant in the animal kingdom.

If there is no Objective Morality, do Right and Wrong really exist? And by really exist I mean, is it something that you can separate from opinion and have it maintain it's integrity.

Morality evolved in animals because it has an advantage over no morality. It is in my best interest to ensure that my tribe stays alive and healthy. There is safety in numbers. This is where morality, and other related things such as empathy, and altruism come from.

Morality is progressive and goal-oriented, but evolution (at least according to materialists and naturalists) is neither progressive nor goal-oriented. Directionless evolution could not be the source of morality.

Your post does not state whether you believe evolution has purpose or not. If you believe evolution does have purpose, then certainly it could be a source for morality, and the rest of your post would be consistent. However, that only pushes the question back a step. What causes purpose in evolution?

But certainly evolution plays a role in morality...it just can't be the sole source and cause of morality. What we can say about evolution and morality is that evolution rewards adaptive behavior and punishes maladaptive behavior. Directionless evolution cannot, however, explain why morality is progressive and goal-oriented.

You bring up some interesting points and a couple things that I would like you to clarify.

In your first paragraph you state that "Morality is progressive and goal-oriented, but evolution (at least according to materialists and naturalists) is neither progressive nor goal-oriented. Directionless evolution could not be the source of morality." I could challenge your assertion that "morality is progressive and goal-oriented." Morality by itself is neither. It is a tool that organisms use to progress and reach goals. Morality by itself has no goal. I could challenge your statement that "evolution is neither progressive nor goal oriented." Evolution by it's very nature is progressive and goal oriented. Not to say that there is a goal in mind, or some destination to be reached, but that there is always more journey to travel, there is always a slightly better way. Evolution, because it never stops is progressive. Flowing water will seek the path of least resistance, this is the same with life. If a river finds an easier path, it will transform the river to take advantage of this easier path. Evolution is the same. Does this mean that the river has a goal? This seems to be irrelevant, because it is what it is, it's going to do what it does regardless of if we attach intention to it. Why should we attempt to attach these human traits to natural processes?

Evolution purpose.
I get the feeling that when you say "the purpose of evolution" you're indicating some sort of Grand Scheme or some sort of deeper meaning. When I think purpose, I think desired outcome.
When you ask questions like "Why are we here? or What's our purpose?", everyone with an opinion could give you a different answer. This doesn't really mean anything in the objective sense.
The purpose of evolution is to get better, be more efficient, have more security, basically get better at being alive. I don't believe that evolution has some end goal or ultimate purpose. It is an improvement process, not a destination.

Back to Morality.
Evolution can explain morality because it is more advantageous than no morality, simple as that.

[4gold]

The purpose of evolution is to get better, be more efficient, have more security, basically get better at being alive. I don't believe that evolution has some end goal or ultimate purpose. It is an improvement process, not a destination.

If you believe that evolution helps us "to get better, be more efficient, have more security, basically get better at being alive", or is an "improvement process", then I have no qualms with the rest of your post. I think we are more in agreement than disagreement with regards to the role of evolution and morality.

Most, but not all, evolutionists are naturalists and materialists, and they would say that evolution does not "improve" anything, because that would imply an objective reality outside of evolution. They would say that it only appears to us that it improves things because that is our brain's way of coping with the changes we see in evolution.

So if you and I agree that evolution is an improvement process, the question now becomes: against what standard are we measuring to say a certain change is an "improvement"?

[4gold]

Evolution is just a mechanism but in it there is the goal of multiply more than the competition. If you argue morality is goal-oriented you are only saying that not killing each other is just a means to achieve a goal of a less cruel society with less fear of getting killed any minute. That is a goal of sorts too.

If morality was only there for the survival of man-kind its goals would effectively be the same as evolution.
I don't see how direction would change anything in the relation between morality and evolution.

If you believe Evolution is goal-oriented toward "multiply more than the competition", then you are in the minority of Evolutionists. And that's fine, and certainly makes your argument that morality is also goal-oriented toward "a less cruel society with less fear of getting killed any minute" much more consistent than the others.

So my question to you would be: against what standard are you measuring these goals of being "more" or "less"?

[x1plus1x]

The purpose of evolution is to get better, be more efficient, have more security, basically get better at being alive. I don't believe that evolution has some end goal or ultimate purpose. It is an improvement process, not a destination.

If you believe that evolution helps us "to get better, be more efficient, have more security, basically get better at being alive", or is an "improvement process", then I have no qualms with the rest of your post. I think we are more in agreement than disagreement with regards to the role of evolution and morality.

Most, but not all, evolutionists are naturalists and materialists, and they would say that evolution does not "improve" anything, because that would imply an objective reality outside of evolution. They would say that it only appears to us that it improves things because that is our brain's way of coping with the changes we see in evolution.

So if you and I agree that evolution is an improvement process, the question now becomes: against what standard are we measuring to say a certain change is an "improvement"?

I don't quite follow your description of evolutionist saying that evolution doesn't improve anything, because that would imply an objective reality outside of evolution.

I would say that evolution does improve. Think about the eye. The objective reality is: there is light in an environment where there is life, and life needs to consume food to continue living. If I can see my dinner, I have a lot better chance of eating. Therefore sight is better than not having sight. I think this is a real, measurable objective improvement - not just my brains way of understanding change.

You asked the question "what standard are we measuring to say a certain change is an "improvement"?" I would suggest that we measure the change over the previous state to determine if the change is indeed an improvement. Does the change lead to better efficiency, better security, etc?