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?

[OpenYourEyes]

Danmark wrote:
You've misread what I wrote. If you don't understand it, that's your issue.
YOU have read in the "objective standard" claim. I've written that I don't believe in an "objective standard." I wrote "The instinctive response is powerful evidence at least some of our morality comes from natural evolution."


My response:
I apologize for that. I thought you also agreed with his conclusion about objective morality. I also just realized that Artie never addresses my point about instinct = objective morals but instead just offered me an example of instinct.

[Artie]

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

Does this behavior lead to enhanced chances of survival for lions or does it diminish survival chances for the species? If it enhances chances it's right behavior if it diminishes chances it's wrong.

[Artie]

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."

And did natural evolution base that morality on subjective opinion?

[OpenYourEyes]

Artie wrote:
And did natural evolution base that morality on subjective opinion.


My response
In part, yes. Morals are in part socially defined. We dont live based on just instincts and even if we did calling our morality "objective" would be just as absurd as calling a lion's morality objective.

Again, objective morality would be a set of absolute standards that govern how we are supposed to behave. It would be the correct standards as opposed to the uncertain standards that we make up or regurgitate from fallen civilizations.

[OpenYourEyes]

Artie response:
Does this behavior lead to enhanced chances of survival for lions or does it diminish survival chances for the species? If it enhances chances it's right behavior if it diminishes chances it's wrong.

My response:
I see the shortcoming in your view. You cant even answer your question objectively and if we went by evidence perhaps it would be inconclusive or mixed.

You have not offered anything that a person can act on.

[Danmark]

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."

And did natural evolution base that morality on subjective opinion?

No. Evolution does not think at all. It does not "base" anything on anything. Tribes that did not cooperate died out. Tribes that had an instinct to protect other tribe members were more likely to survive. There is nothing conscious or planned about the process of evolution.

[Ancient of Years]

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

Does this behavior lead to enhanced chances of survival for lions or does it diminish survival chances for the species? If it enhances chances it's right behavior if it diminishes chances it's wrong.

When a male lion takes over a pride - often by killing the resident male - he will kill the cubs. This brings the female(s) into estrus and avoids expending resources preserving a genetic line that the new lion has no genetic investment in. It is about gene survival. Genes that help preserve the community will generally be seen only in species in which community is essential to individual survival.

[Bust Nak]

Obviously ever since the beginning reproduction and survival have been the "good ends" and those "ends" were determined for organisms long before organisms themselves got the ability to subjectively start thinking about "moral values".

This argument presumes good and bad ends exist outside of an organism's thinking of moral value, it is question begging fallacy.

[Artie]

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."

And did natural evolution base that morality on subjective opinion?

No. Evolution does not think at all. It does not "base" anything on anything. Tribes that did not cooperate died out. Tribes that had an instinct to protect other tribe members were more likely to survive. There is nothing conscious or planned about the process of evolution.

So if no subjective opinions are involved it's an objective process creating an objective standard?

[Artie]

Obviously ever since the beginning reproduction and survival have been the "good ends" and those "ends" were determined for organisms long before organisms themselves got the ability to subjectively start thinking about "moral values".

This argument presumes good and bad ends exist outside of an organism's thinking of moral value, it is question begging fallacy.

Wouldn't it be good for an organism with a survival instinct to survive even though the organism has no clue what "moral values" are?