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.

[Bust Nak]

You seem to have replaced man’s morality with mere instinct, but this creates many problems. First of all, why should we follow this base instinct of preservation of mankind that evolution has created?

Because you want to, because you can't help but want to, because that's what base instinct means.

But many of our instincts clash like self preservation and species preservation.

The basic block of evolution, the genes doesn't care about their hosts preservation or the hosts' species. There are many conflicting factor in play and the resulting conflicting instincts are to be expected.

Now you say empathy makes a species stronger, and I agree with you too a point. However, in some instances empathy does not help preserve a species...

That it makes our species stronger to a point is enough for empathy to be strongly selected for. It may well back fire and be a factor in our extinction in the future.

However, the best evolution morality would find a way to make us feel empathy when it will help the species and make us unmerciful at times that will help us preserve the species. This new evolutionary morality gives us the best of both worlds and shouldn’t we strive for the best or is our actually morality getting in the way?

Our species already have this ability. You hinted at it before as "impossible to follow all of our instincts." It doesn't take much at all to switch off empathy towards an "out group."

To put it more clearly, not having an objective morality and thinking our morality comes from mere instinct leads to the ends justifying the means. Preservation of the species does not care HOW you achieve the preservation, it only cares that you achieve the preservation.

I don't think you've made the case that instinct leads to ends justifies the means even if we take all your points for granted, you've shown that our instincts, our morality and our survival individually or as a species could clash. Why does that mean the end justifies the means? Your instincts doesn't care about preservation of the species. Your instincts is about feeling good, and you get that from hurting your enemies and helping your friends.

And as final note, many opponents of moral subjectivist want to focus on what the rules says without realising that any moral rules that a objectivist could bring up (e.g. murder is always wrong,) could be rephased in a subjective way (i.e. I think murder is always wrong.) That moral subjectivism would lead to certain undesire situration where as moral objectivism could avoid it is one giant non-sequitur argument.

[dusk]

You seem to have replaced man’s morality with mere instinct, but this creates many problems. First of all, why should we follow this base instinct of preservation of mankind that evolution has created? Because it is good? But that would imply a higher objective morality. Because we should follow our instincts? But many of our instincts clash like self preservation and species preservation. It is impossible to follow all of our instincts. There is no reason to follow this Evolutionary morality.

It doesn't matter whether we should, we do. Otherwise we stop being human and are machines of pure ratio. Why should you like your family better than anybody else? Do they really deserve it more? Why shouldn't you live your life alone in the wilderness? Why find a wife/husband? Why should you care about species preservation? About the last most people in the 1st world care very little and I am not talking about environmental damage but also child birth statistics.
Empathy, the desire for company those are instincts if you want. They make us who we are without it we are just machines. There is no need to justify our very own self. How we satisfy our desires though can be judged by others as they might not be willing to share the planet with us we don't show some respect for each other.

Thought there are wants that oppose each other and simply won't be fully satisfied (the world isn't black and white) but self pres. and species pres. don't fall into the category IMO. The individual desires self preservation but the species they don't care about. They care about friends or any person with close emotional ties not really the species.
Due to the evolutionary principles some variation of species will win in the long term but that doesn't make it goals that any individual cares about.
Imagine a snail race where you bet on the winner. One snail will eventually cross the finish line and win. The snail itself is entirely indifferent to this meta goal it merely moves some way. The morality that we need as social beings to be successful on the evolutionary scale and exists for the reason of making us more successful, doesn't mean that it actualizes in the individual the same goals. The worm doesn't crawl trough the earth to make it more fluffy for some gardeners delight. It couldn't care less about that.

Now you say empathy makes a species stronger, and I agree with you too a point.

Attributes such as stronger I would always be careful with in evolution debates as it nurtures the quite common misunderstanding that i.e a faster rabbit is always better. Fitter is the one that needs only the food he gets and simply breeds more successfully. In case of humans a well educated genius that is outstanding in sport and good lucking is still evolutionary unfit because he most likely gets very few children compared to some average underfed poor guy who lives in a poor country a live of day to day struggle but still manages his 6 surviving children.

However, in some instances empathy does not help preserve a species. For example, two big problems affect our world today, over population and the unemployment rate. What if we killed all of the unemployed people?
This would take steps to solve both issues. You may object and say this would take away our empathy and make mankind weaker so it is bad. However, the best evolution morality would find a way to make us feel empathy when it will help the species and make us unmerciful at times that will help us preserve the species.

That is the case to a degree. When we see a helpless baby most people feel strong empathy. When you see the warrior trying to burn down your village you empathy towards the other human being is very limited and such is your mercy.
As I already mentioned evolution doesn't care whether we go extinct or tear apart the planet. It simple describes the inescapable truth that those with more successful offspring will survive. It is not a sentient being wondering who it could provide us humans at the center of the universe with the best morality. We figure it out or we don't, that is it. Unemployed people aren't happy but they do live and they do have children as far as evolution is concerned they are better of than rich people with such great lives that they don't want to make place for children.
Over population is also not a problem for the individual at the global level it will take care of itself. Poor people do already build in places that are deemed unsafe because the land is cheap and in effect are usually the first that suffer from natural disasters and suffer the most. If the land cannot sustain the people they die. Currently though the land could sustain many more. Distribution of wealth is our only problem and urbanization. If people wouldn't all flock to the cities because that is the only place to find jobs they wouldn't all sit on top of each other. There is plenty of land and vacated country side and only some mostly coastal cities are overflowing.

To find objective morality one must look inside of man. All men have different conflicting desires and something inside him tells him he ought to pick one.

It is due to reason, culture, law, socialization or religion. What we often sum up in morality is often just a simple form of reasoning out what smarter people already though of to achieve ones goals. You want friends and company; Don't be an a-hole. Behave like your cultural environment expects from you or close enough. Condemn bad behavior (or what you consider such) because otherwise the other won't stop.
What individuals pick and think right is very different. Because of different desires to being with and different socialization. If there was some well of objective morality we can all tap into, it would be less varied and rather simple.

However, in different situations different instincts are preferred over others. For example, man’s instinct to fight is usually suppressed, but at war time it is encouraged. What is this thing that keeps our instincts in line.

Our consciousness and reason keeps them in line. Our instincts are only the basis not morality itself. Morality is rules, customs, values. There is still reasoning and weighing.

One now might justly ask where does this objective morality come from? It comes from God. So objective morality is in a way authoritarianism, but I did not use God to prove objective morality. I proved objective morality and then used objective morality to prove God.

No you didn't prove objective morality. Not even close. "It comes from god" just hangs in the air.
What you basically said is that somehow we manage to tell right from wrong and therefore there is objective morality. It would only be objective if there is only one true answer if we all managed to tell right from wrong perfectly and there never be a dispute, if we always end up at the same/ the right "right&wrong". Otherwise all you prove is morality without any indication whether subjective or objective.
Objective god given morality is one that doesn't get its justification from results or from changing environment and context. But from god and unchanging thing that would make an unchanging morality with only one right answer.
//////

So objective morality is in a way authoritarianism

I totally agree. The philosophy is also nicely summed up in Taqlid from Islam. (Check wikipedia)
You have to accept the authority to accept the rule but the authority is nothing until you accept it. Nobody accepts the king of wales, than the king of wales doesn't exist. Morality in such an authoritarian way or in taqlid is never universal or truly objective. Not for human kind in general only for those that accept it as such. Just because wales thinks their king is the best in the world won't make it so for the Irish.
Somebody raised by catholics may say they are the only civilized people with the right morals and all others are ignorant or barbaric.
Personally I think it is sad that some principle such as taqlid is mainstream Islam in while many older philosophical advances are ignored. This believe maybe strong but the Muslim from Egypt may think the same. Neither morality can be assume to be objective from any reasonable 3rd party.
I personally always asked myself what fruits the debate about an objective morality can possibly yield when there is no possibility to determine the one true objective morality. If there was a god with his objective morality he'd need to up is game in communication skills, as he is quite clearly doing a miserable job with humans. How hard can it be not to cause multiple holy books with similar content being handed around, where each is signed as gods word.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Evolution is instinctive. We do alot of things instinctively without having to think. Every animal is selfish by nature including humans.

This is completely false. The obvious counterexamples are the eusocials -- bees, wasps, ants, naked mole rats, but even human society is simply not something that could have come about via pure selfishness.

Yes that is why the strong lions eat first. And what would happen if we removed every law form society? Why do we need them?

We don't. Formalized legal systems have existed for only a small fraction of human history.

So people weren't executed for breaking the law 4000 years ago?

Because every law that is established is intended to prohibit thoughtless selfish crimes against the innocent.

Like, say, laws that prohibit same-sex marriage?

Yes, so innocent little boys aren't conditioned to think they are little girls.

We are selfish by nature as are animals. When we,as well as animals, are born, our wild nature is in an undeveloped state. With proper discipline our wild nature is tamed and prevented from developing to its full potential. Take two dogs from the same litter. Release one in the wild and keep one for a pet. One will be tamed and the other will develop its wild nature due to the absence of discipline. The same is true for people.

I am nearly certain you have no evidence for this.

Just observation. Some men are tame, some are wild. Why?

Motives are always examined in order to know if the action is virtue or vice. In a murder trial the motive will usually decide the fate of the accused. Just because you see an animal do something that resembles benevolence doesn't mean that is what it is.

There is no point to further debate if you dismiss all counterexamples out of hand.

Which would be?

We protect out children because we have an affection for them. Benevolence is born out of compassion for those we have no affection for. Benevolence is feeding the man that violated your family. It is doing favors for people that least deserve them. Benevolence is forgiving the man that raped your wife. Jesus described this in Matthew chapter 5
43 ¶ "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

Jesus seems to have been rather mad here. Why is mere forgiveness benevolent? Ought I not be more concerned about the rapist's potential to assault others than my personal feelings toward him?

Forgiveness is not intended to benefit the aggressor, it is intended to benefit the victim. Forgiveness does not disannul justice it forwards it to another party.

[PhiloKGB]

This is completely false. The obvious counterexamples [to pure selfishness] are the eusocials -- bees, wasps, ants, naked mole rats, but even human society is simply not something that could have come about via pure selfishness.

Yes that is why the strong lions eat first.

What does this mean? Lions are not eusocial.

And what would happen if we removed every law form society? Why do we need them?

Not much, I suspect. We wouldn't simply forget how laws work if governments ceased to exist.

So people weren't executed for breaking the law 4000 years ago?

Sure they were, but not 50,000 years ago.

Yes, so innocent little boys aren't conditioned to think they are little girls.

That's not a very intelligent response.

]Some men are tame, some are wild. Why?

I can't answer. I don't know any wild men.

Motives are always examined in order to know if the action is virtue or vice. In a murder trial the motive will usually decide the fate of the accused. Just because you see an animal do something that resembles benevolence doesn't mean that is what it is.

There is no point to further debate if you dismiss all counterexamples out of hand.

Which would be?

Things that nonhuman animals do which appear benevolent.

Forgiveness is not intended to benefit the aggressor, it is intended to benefit the victim. Forgiveness does not disannul justice it forwards it to another party.

So I can't forgive someone if I don't tell them? That doesn't seem right.

[Zetesis Apistia]

What does this mean? Lions are not eusocial.

I have a German shepherd that is eusocial but she is very stingy with her food.

Not much, I suspect. We wouldn't simply forget how laws work if governments ceased to exist

You don't think crime would skyrocket if laws were removed?

So people weren't executed for breaking the law 4000 years ago?

Sure they were, but not 50,000 years ago.

Assuming people lived 50000 years ago how would you know this?

Yes, so innocent little boys aren't conditioned to think they are little girls.

That's not a very intelligent response.

You don't think boys are conditioned to assume a feminine disposition? Shouldn't men be men and women be women?

]Some men are tame, some are wild. Why?

I can't answer. I don't know any wild men.

You should visit some of Americas worst prisons.

Things that nonhuman animals do which appear benevolent.

I know people that give money to charities in order to get a tax break. Is that really benevolence?

So I can't forgive someone if I don't tell them? That doesn't seem right.

I think telling them is necessary in most cases in order to forgive.

[PhiloKGB]

You don't think crime would skyrocket if laws were removed?

No. I think most people who wish to steal or kill already do so. In any event, people seem to be comfortable with governance. If somehow you were able to abolish existing governments, ad hoc governments would quickly take their places.

So people weren't executed for breaking the law 4000 years ago?

Sure they were, but not 50,000 years ago.

Assuming people lived 50000 years ago how would you know this?

It's a conclusion from evidence. The best estimates have writing beginning around 6000 BC.

You don't think boys are conditioned to assume a feminine disposition?

I think children are conditioned to hell and back. This business about "feminine disposition" is just butthurt men whining that their patriarchal stronghold is crumbling.

Shouldn't men be men and women be women?

You'll have to sit down and list all the necessary characteristics of each. And I think you'll find that those lists have changed considerably over time.

You should visit some of Americas worst prisons.

I don't think those conditions mimic the "wild."

I know people that give money to charities in order to get a tax break. Is that really benevolence?

Absolutely. It may not be altruism, but charitable giving certainly does some good.

I think telling them is necessary in most cases in order to forgive.

I don't think you really think that, but you have to pretend you do because you've argued yourself into a rhetorical corner.

[dusk]

Not much, I suspect. We wouldn't simply forget how laws work if governments ceased to exist

You don't think crime would skyrocket if laws were removed?

The discussion was about formalized laws if I didn't miss anything. Formalized laws are generally only a product of too big communities. If you are in a small enough environment with every person knowing each other well there are usually no formalized laws/rules whatsoever. Quite a few implicit ones are always present. When the people don't know each other and in extension don't trust each other or when the group becomes so big that wrong behavior is very difficult to judge by the individual due to the complexity of consequences, that is when formalized law shows up.
Laws don't need a government. I used to play an online game called space nations. All players created their own laws in alliances that you had to accept quite quickly. Everybody and nobody was enforcing them. Everybody chose the laws completely freely as there was no nation you are born in or any you alliance you had to join like it is in our life. Laws aren't only there to control the evil people, they are also there because people want them to be.
BTW I think these games are extremely interesting to study human nature, politics and all that. A couple thousand players with zero oversight entirely organizing themselves and those games usually last months.

Unless you deal with people that don't enjoy living in anarchy, removing laws would always trigger new ones to be written and agreed to. If a federal government brakes it may be that reformation is on a more local level but it still happens.
And just because the police isn't around currently doesn't mean you suddenly feel the urge to live in anarchy or start of an anarchy revolution. Some might but I am quite sure its a small minority.