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.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

In answer to your question, morality is both objective and subjective however not objective according to your definition. Morality, meaning, "the governance of behavior," is a fact of the universe, it exists as a real thing, not just within the imagination of individuals. It is controlled and moderated by the forces of the universe just like everything else. If the forces of the universe were different, morality would be different. People would think differently about what is right and what is wrong. It is the ultimate cause to why organisms govern their behavior the way that they do.

Morality is not a rule book or a guide as to how people(or other animals) should behave, morality is ultimately the governance of behavior, that's all. And the ultimate reason for the governance of behavior is that the universe works the way it works. See here for several posts on the matter.

[Bust Nak]

But the third thing often tells us to follow the weaker impulse.

The impulse itself is telling you to follow it. At least that's what impulse means to me - the primal, unreasoned desire to do something.

Why would evolution desire the weaker of the two?

Evolution desire nothing. A conscious being however is a different matter, a conscious, rational being is yet a different matter.

And if a guy follows the stronger impulse he is usually criticized or feels bad for it. For example: A guy sees a child drowning. He cant swim so the stronger impulse says dont jump in or you will drown. The man lets the child drown. The guy cant live with himself because he let the child drown. If he followed the right (strong) impulse why does he feel bad?

Because his didn't fulfil his slightly less strong impulse to save the child. How he feels afterwards is simply the sum of all the joy he feels for having fulfilled his impulses, minus all the disappointment he feels for all the impulses he ignored.

[dusk]

So we both agree on the premise: evolution and morality have purpose and are progressive. What standard do you use to determine if morality has progressed?

What standard do you use to judge progress in Evolution? When one dies species dies out it is bad luck another takes it place. Is that really progress. Only really from the perspective of one related species that is actually affected.
Say big dragonflies die out because the oxygen levels drop and insects lacking lungs can only get so big with a given oxygen level. Is that progress. There is certainly the goal to survive on a species perspective and they get smaller. If they didn't change there would be no more dragonflies.
Now the standard for Morality would be as mentioned cohesion and synergy. If people turn on each other, spite each other are corrupt they are doing something wrong in respect to the goal. If people don't aide each other there is no point to the society and people might as well go their separate ways. I would also argue that happiness and the utilitarian personal view is just that personal but only indirectly affects a big moral system.
So the standard is cohesion and synergy. Just like the oxygen in the air changes the definition of fit dragonfly, I argue that the perfect ethics system only exists within context and context changes. Especially global and local makes a huge difference where some ethics that work locally are hazardous on a bigger scale or simply impossible and vice versa looses systems are often too loose and achieve much worse cohesion and synergy.
Example: neighborhood behavior when city people move to a more rural place they often bring rather distant unsocial neighborly behavior with them. That is regress not progress.

[Zetesis Apistia]

But the third thing often tells us to follow the weaker impulse.

The impulse itself is telling you to follow it. At least that's what impulse means to me - the primal, unreasoned desire to do something.

Well of course the impulse is making a suggestion. I am talking about why we self debate afterwards for following the impulse. Why do we reason with ourselves in an attempt to convince ourselves that it was the right thing to do?

Why would evolution desire the weaker of the two?

Evolution desire nothing. A conscious being however is a different matter, a conscious, rational being is yet a different matter.

The process of evolution supports the strong and weeds out the weak. Why would people who are evolving desire to support the weak?

And if a guy follows the stronger impulse he is usually criticized or feels bad for it. For example: A guy sees a child drowning. He cant swim so the stronger impulse says dont jump in or you will drown. The man lets the child drown. The guy cant live with himself because he let the child drown. If he followed the right (strong) impulse why does he feel bad?

Because his didn't fulfil his slightly less strong impulse to save the child.

Why would the weak impulse be desired over the strong impulse?

How he feels afterwards is simply the sum of all the joy he feels for having fulfilled his impulses, minus all the disappointment he feels for all the impulses he ignored.

So why are our impulses being judged? If they aren't why is there a stipulation on our happiness.

[Bust Nak]

Well of course the impulse is making a suggestion. I am talking about why we self debate afterwards for following the impulse. Why do we reason with ourselves in an attempt to convince ourselves that it was the right thing to do?

We are rational being, we want to explain things, even in cases where no explaination is needed other than that's just the way things are. In some ways, the impulse to be rational, conflict with your other impulses.

The process of evolution supports the strong and weeds out the weak. Why would people who are evolving desire to support the weak?

Because those without the desire to support the weak, turns out to be weaker and got weeded out, somewhere along our particular lineage. There are other lineages where this isn't the case.

Why would the weak impulse be desired over the strong impulse?

The strongest impulse is desired the most. But impulses aren't rational and changes over the time. In your example of saving a child, given time to reflect, the desire to be the hero, over comes the desire to stay out of the water, so he feels bad.

So why are our impulses being judged? If they aren't why is there a stipulation on our happiness.

We judge because people's desires conflict with each other, both between different people (I want something that another also wants,) and within the same person (fear of water and saving someone for example.)

And where conflict happens, stipulation on happiness of some kind is sure to follow.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Because those without the desire to support the weak, turns out to be weaker and got weeded out, somewhere along our particular lineage. There are other lineages where this isn't the case.

How does the evolutionary process select the weak over the strong when the process of evolution is survival of the fittest.

The strongest impulse is desired the most. But impulses aren't rational and changes over the time. In your example of saving a child, given time to reflect, the desire to be the hero, over comes the desire to stay out of the water, so he feels bad.

It appears that his desire to survive was stronger than his desire to be a hero or he would have chosen the hero route. And actually the weak impulse is desired the most in a rational mind.

We judge because people's desires conflict with each other, both between different people (I want something that another also wants,) and within the same person (fear of water and saving someone for example.)

And where conflict happens, stipulation on happiness of some kind is sure to follow.

If impulses are inconsistent as you say why would you judge someone for doing something that they may feel is right at the time?

[Bust Nak]

How does the evolutionary process select the weak over the strong when the process of evolution is survival of the fittest.

Evolution doesn't select the weak over the strong. It select the strong enough over the weak.

It appears that his desire to survive was stronger than his desire to be a hero or he would have chosen the hero route. And actually the weak impulse is desired the most in a rational mind.

Actually the strongest impulses won both times - first his stronger desire to survive won. And at a later time, desire to be a hero became stronger and that won.

If impulses are inconsistent as you say why would you judge someone for doing something that they may feel is right at the time?

I don't know how to answer because I don't even know why impulses being inconsistent would suggest that one shouldn't judge someone for doing something that they may feel is right at the time. Tell me what you think the relevance is and I'll address them.

[dusk]

How does the evolutionary process select the weak over the strong when the process of evolution is survival of the fittest.

You need to think a little bigger.
You have 10 bee hives. In some the hornets go in and dozens of bees surround them kill them off with too much body heat and in the process sacrificing some of their own. Suicide bees but they get the job done. In others a few hornets can kill the entire hive because the bees don't help each other and attack in sync.
Some hives die some don't. Evolution isn't all about the individual either. Among humans it was families, clans that used to be more successful together just like meerkats need a look out.
In Evolution it doesn't matter which one is weak only which one survives. If one clan is somewhat slowed down by some weak member but as a whole very supportive it will still be better of than some clan that turns on each other or only supports those that contribute enough.

[Zetesis Apistia]

How does the evolutionary process select the weak over the strong when the process of evolution is survival of the fittest.

Evolution doesn't select the weak over the strong. It select the strong enough over the weak.

Apparently not in many cases. In fact guilt nudges us to choose the weak over the strong in many instances. That goes against survival of the fit enough. Hmmm...

It appears that his desire to survive was stronger than his desire to be a hero or he would have chosen the hero route. And actually the weak impulse is desired the most in a rational mind.

Actually the strongest impulses won both times - first his stronger desire to survive won. And at a later time, desire to be a hero became stronger and that won.

We do know that people suppress the strong desire in many instances therefore the strong is sometimes overpowered by the weak. Is that part of our macroevolution?

If impulses are inconsistent as you say why would you judge someone for doing something that they may feel is right at the time?

I don't know how to answer because I don't even know why impulses being inconsistent would suggest that one shouldn't judge someone for doing something that they may feel is right at the time. Tell me what you think the relevance is and I'll address them.

What is right for you may not be right for me, so how can you judge?

[Zetesis Apistia]

How does the evolutionary process select the weak over the strong when the process of evolution is survival of the fittest.

You need to think a little bigger.
You have 10 bee hives. In some the hornets go in and dozens of bees surround them kill them off with too much body heat and in the process sacrificing some of their own. Suicide bees but they get the job done. In others a few hornets can kill the entire hive because the bees don't help each other and attack in sync.
Some hives die some don't. Evolution isn't all about the individual either. Among humans it was families, clans that used to be more successful together just like meerkats need a look out.
In Evolution it doesn't matter which one is weak only which one survives. If one clan is somewhat slowed down by some weak member but as a whole very supportive it will still be better of than some clan that turns on each other or only supports those that contribute enough.

Evolution doesn't have a mind to think with. It does not consult with living organisms to do what it does. It simply makes adjustments that will aid in survival. Morality is a separate enterprise altogether. In fact a man may dive into icy water to save a child and they both die. How did that benefit anything? Animals do not possess morality humans do. Animals are self serving creatures. That is evolution. Humans can and are selfless at times. That is not evolution.