Objective Morality?

[enviousintheeverafter]

It is often claimed that objective morality only exists if God does- that without God, there is no basis for claiming that morality is objective, that anything like objective moral facts or duties exist. Of course, for this argument to have any force, it needs to be true, or probably true, that objective morality does in fact exist.

So does it? Why think there are such things as objective moral facts or duties?

[Artie]

There's no such thing as "objective" morality.

Since we evolved a survival instinct and don't want to die is it objectively wrong to murder people or is it subjectively wrong and just depends on who you ask?

[OpenYourEyes]

Artie response:
Evolution and natural selection gave us the survival instinct. We try to survive and avoid dying. Survival good death bad. The goal is to survive and avoid death. So we say that it's good that we survive, good if we manage to avoid death. So it's good if we help people survive and avoid death, bad if we cause death such as murder. A definition of good is "that which is morally right; righteousness." Therefore helping people survive good/moral/right, murder bad/immoral/wrong. Simple logic.[/quote]


My response:
History proves that we dont have such a system. While we may value survival individually and towards kin, we often dont value this collectively (for all humans) and one reason is because of different morals. Secondly, some of the same bad morals that have doomed other civilizations seem to always crop back up into subsequent civilizations.

At best your view is incomplete or inadequate to show that objective morals exist, let alone how we can accurately (beyond opinion) know these morals.

[Danmark]

There's no such thing as "objective" morality.

Since we evolved a survival instinct and don't want to die is it objectively wrong to murder people or is it subjectively wrong and just depends on who you ask?

That's a false dichotomy. Also I think the objective/subjective analysis is the wrong way to look at it. What we CAN say is that the individual recognizes that a certain act is considered wrong by society. We may or may not share the view that an act is immoral, but we can also recognize that a society, culture, or subculture condemns the act.

[Artie]

What we CAN say is that the individual recognizes that a certain act is considered wrong by society.

What we CAN say is that this individual recognizes that a certain act such as murder is objectively wrong because according to evolution and natural selection survival is good death bad and evolution and natural selection is just an objective natural process and no subjective opinions were involved in giving us the survival instinct.

[OpenYourEyes]

Artie response:
What we CAN say is that this individual recognizes that a certain act such as murder is objectively wrong because according to evolution and natural selection survival is good death bad and evolution and natural selection is just an objective natural process and no subjective opinions were involved in giving us the survival instinct.



My response:

Evolution is a natural/real process but it doesnt follow that everything that stems from it is objective. The brain has evolved through the objective process (evolution) but you wouldnt call every aspect of the brain objective, like when we use it to form opinions, like morals!

[Artie]

My response:

Evolution is a natural/real process but it doesnt follow that everything that stems from it is objective. The brain has evolved through the objective process (evolution) but you wouldnt call every aspect of the brain objective, like when we use it to form opinions, like morals!

Next time you see an interview with a person who has saved other people notice that often they say "I acted instinctively" instead of saying "I first formed the opinion that it was right and moral of me to try to save that person from dying and then I acted."

[OpenYourEyes]

]Artie wrote:Next time you see an interview with a person who has saved other people notice that often they say "I acted instinctively" instead of saying "I first formed the opinion that it was right and moral of me to try to save that person from dying and then I acted."



My reply:
We often act based on our beliefs which i assume the hero couldve had way before he rescued anyone. Behavior is not just a product of instinct but also environment. Instincts do die out from time to time based on environmental pressures or lack of necessity which is why i question attributing objectivity on a shifty foundation.

Your view may as well be since its instinctual for male lions to commit infanticide that makes it moral, objectively moral even.

[Danmark]

My response:

Evolution is a natural/real process but it doesnt follow that everything that stems from it is objective. The brain has evolved through the objective process (evolution) but you wouldnt call every aspect of the brain objective, like when we use it to form opinions, like morals!

Next time you see an interview with a person who has saved other people notice that often they say "I acted instinctively" instead of saying "I first formed the opinion that it was right and moral of me to try to save that person from dying and then I acted."

EXCELLENT point! The instinctive response is powerful evidence at least some of our morality comes from natural evolution. The impulse to risk one's life to save another rises before the rational balancing of interests. That impulse to save clicks in before the rational mind can even weigh the risk. The impulse may be checked by rational response, but the instinctive impulse to save is reflexive. I have experienced this myself and consider your argument irrefutable.

[OpenYourEyes]

Danmark wrote,,
EXCELLENT point! The instinctive response is powerful evidence at least some of our morality comes from natural evolution. The impulse to risk one's life to save another rises before the rational balancing of interests. That impulse to save clicks in before the rational mind can even weigh the risk. The impulse may be checked by rational response, but the instinctive impulse to save is reflexive. I have experienced this myself and consider your argument irrefutable.


My response:

instinct = objective standard for right and wrong? Explain yourself!

[Danmark]

Danmark wrote,,
EXCELLENT point! The instinctive response is powerful evidence at least some of our morality comes from natural evolution. The impulse to risk one's life to save another rises before the rational balancing of interests. That impulse to save clicks in before the rational mind can even weigh the risk. The impulse may be checked by rational response, but the instinctive impulse to save is reflexive. I have experienced this myself and consider your argument irrefutable.


My response:

instinct = objective standard for right and wrong? Explain yourself!

You've misread what I wrote. If you don't understand it, that's your issue.
YOU have 'read in' the "objective standard" claim, a claim I did not make. I've written that I don't even believe in an "objective standard," that, that is the wrong way to look at the question. I wrote "The instinctive response is powerful evidence at least some of our morality comes from natural evolution."