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.

[dusk]

Lol my phrasing is actually more consistent and proper than yours.

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.

In my text you can actually insert into any mention the theory/mechanism of evolution and it will work. Evolution has no mind and it makes no adjustments it is just the term that summarizes the mechanism or the theory of what happens when stuff dies of and other stuff replicates faster.

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?

Classic example of short sighted thinking. It doesn't matter if it worked out in this one instance. If the people in a bigger family feel the urge to save and help quickly without much thinking they will together probably more successful than the other family that just waits 5 mins ponders whether it is really worth it to risk once live for the chance of saving this child that only eats doesn't get a decent amount of food on the table.

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.

That is just all so wrong. On every single sentence.
Animals definitely possess morality. They know when they did something wrong, they do understand the concept of fairness. Not all but some.
I suggest this video from TED
Evolution is survival of the fittest. The fitter can be the more self serving (usually loners) but among social animals the fitter population is the one that aides each other and we aren't the only social creature on the planet.
Morality is not evolution but the reason it exists is most certainly that it does have a purpose among social groups and increases their fitness.

Simple logic. You have a smart animal that figure out being in a group gives protection, helps hunting, what ever. They rot together. The individuals that don't help the group or serve the code get kicked out are on their own and likely to not reproduce and die. The groups that are most successful by maximizing their synergy effects will breed most successfully, win territorial fights, get more food, are less likely to die from accidents, sickness, you name it. Now the neurological conditioning isn't rational because pretty dumb creatures have it. Empathy and selflessness will at some point also be detrimental if the person can be taken advantage of too easily or sacrifices too much to leave too little time for one self. So there is always a spread in the population.

Morality isn't evolution but it is something without social creatures cannot be sufficiently explained. It is like trying to ignore flying when talking about birds. Just like flying there is a point to morality.

Just wondering did you read that post? Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:58 pm

[Zetesis Apistia]

In my text you can actually insert into any mention the theory/mechanism of evolution and it will work. Evolution has no mind and it makes no adjustments it is just the term that summarizes the mechanism or the theory of what happens when stuff dies of and other stuff replicates faster.

Please forgive my political incorrectness. I was merely making the point that evolution, however you choose to define it, is a process that doesn't think, it only looks to better benefit its target. It is a very selfish process by it's very nature.

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?

Classic example of short sighted thinking. It doesn't matter if it worked out in this one instance. If the people in a bigger family feel the urge to save and help quickly without much thinking they will together probably more successful than the other family that just waits 5 mins ponders whether it is really worth it to risk once live for the chance of saving this child that only eats doesn't get a decent amount of food on the table.

Let me go a different route her. I see evolution, which I do agree with to some degree, and morality as two completely different animals. Evolution is a very selfish process which only looks to aid the strong and weed out the weak. Morality on the other hand finds its roots in benevolence. Benevolence does not look to aid its own survival, but the survival of others that may well be weaker than the benefactor. One is selfish and the other is selfless. Morality and evolution cannot come from the same source.

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.

That is just all so wrong. On every single sentence.
Animals definitely possess morality.

Animals are driven by affection and fear. Neither of them come from a benevolent root.

They know when they did something wrong, they do understand the concept of fairness. Not all but some.

The man that slows down because he sees a cop in the distance may be obeying the law at that moment, but it is motivated by fear and not benevolence. Was there any virtue in his obedience? The man that drives slow because he doesn't want to cause traffic fatalities when no cop is in sight is motivated by benevolence. In both cases it appears that both are obedient until you examine the motivation behind their obedience. Animals are motivated by fear and or affection and not benevolence. An animal may risk its own life by chasing a pack of wild dogs away from its offspring, which may well appear to be a benevolent act, but its good deed is rooted in affection and not benevolence. They are two entirely different things. So no animals do not poseess a benevolent morality as do humans.

I suggest this video from TED

I am skeptical when people go out of their way to prove that animals are equal to humans. If that is the case we should value animal life to the degree that we value human life. When we find a dead animal we should put detectives on the case so we can bring the man or the animal that did it to justice.

Evolution is survival of the fittest. The fitter can be the more self serving (usually loners) but among social animals the fitter population is the one that aides each other and we aren't the only social creature on the planet.
Morality is not evolution but the reason it exists is most certainly that it does have a purpose among social groups and increases their fitness.

Coyotes use the other members of the pack to do what they cannot do by themselves. But when there is a kill the strong fill their bellies first. There is no benevolence in animals coming together to serve their own selfish agenda.

Simple logic. You have a smart animal that figure out being in a group gives protection, helps hunting, what ever. They rot together. The individuals that don't help the group or serve the code get kicked out are on their own and likely to not reproduce and die. The groups that are most successful by maximizing their synergy effects will breed most successfully, win territorial fights, get more food, are less likely to die from accidents, sickness, you name it. Now the neurological conditioning isn't rational because pretty dumb creatures have it. Empathy and selflessness will at some point also be detrimental if the person can be taken advantage of too easily or sacrifices too much to leave too little time for one self. So there is always a spread in the population.

Suppose we stop feeding a quadriplegic sibling because they do not aid the survival of our group. The group would be better fit to survive if they x'd this fifth wheel. Is that what you would do? and would you not be the first to condemn those who did? But you say animals are moral when they do such things.

Just wondering did you read that post? Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:58 pm

I didn't see one for that time

[dusk]

In my text you can actually insert into any mention the theory/mechanism of evolution and it will work. Evolution has no mind and it makes no adjustments it is just the term that summarizes the mechanism or the theory of what happens when stuff dies of and other stuff replicates faster.

Please forgive my political incorrectness. I was merely making the point that evolution, however you choose to define it, is a process that doesn't think, it only looks to better benefit its target. It is a very selfish process by it's very nature.

Why does evolution have attributes such as selfish if it doesn't think? I think the sticker of a psychological characteristic to a mechanism says you are ignoring the point you tried to make in the sentence immediately thereafter.

Let me go a different route her. I see evolution, which I do agree with to some degree, and morality as two completely different animals. Evolution is a very selfish process which only looks to aid the strong and weed out the weak. Morality on the other hand finds its roots in benevolence. Benevolence does not look to aid its own survival, but the survival of others that may well be weaker than the benefactor. One is selfish and the other is selfless. Morality and evolution cannot come from the same source.

I think you just repeat over and over the same logical error. You see Evolution as doing something on purpose. Benevolence is not contradictory to any characteristic of evolution because evolution is indifferent to anything that gives one an edge. Benevolence is a character trait important to the survival of social animals. Evolution doesn't care whether one is selfish or no selfless, all that matters is that animal A has more offspring than B if it achieves such via supporting each other better in a group or in teams fine why not. Ants, fish, birds need big groups and sometimes only limited rules for it. Apes, wolves have more complicated rules and hierarchies. Even without the social group benevolence can be found in the mothers of almost all mammals as a vital character trait that is absolutely necessary for the survival of the young. Do vultures show food sources to other vultures out of cold smart reasoning? Thinking ahead and guessing that if I do that they will help me another time and I cannot eat all that anyway? Probably not. They probably don't do the philosophical reasoning but simply some started and those behaviors have been passed on as good behavior that was useful enough that the egoistic vultures died out and most vultures tell others. They probably think that is just the right thing to do, like the mother thinks caring for her children is the right thing, or somehow emotionally satisfying.

Animals are driven by affection and fear. Neither of them come from a benevolent root.

And if you work overtime to pay for the christmas presents for your vultures at home that has nothing to do with affection I guess? Honestly that statement just makes no sense whatsoever and I don't think it requires a paragraph to explain just some thinking.

The man that slows down because he sees a cop in the distance may be obeying the law at that moment, but it is motivated by fear and not benevolence. Was there any virtue in his obedience? The man that drives slow because he doesn't want to cause traffic fatalities when no cop is in sight is motivated by benevolence. In both cases it appears that both are obedient until you examine the motivation behind their obedience. Animals are motivated by fear and or affection and not benevolence. An animal may risk its own life by chasing a pack of wild dogs away from its offspring, which may well appear to be a benevolent act, but its good deed is rooted in affection and not benevolence. They are two entirely different things. So no animals do not poseess a benevolent morality as do humans.

The man who drives slow is motivated by a sense of responsibility. The hungry meerkat that watches for danger while everybody else is digging for worms is also being responsible and not a stupid idiot that cannot think two steps ahead.
And in what is benevolence routed if not empathy? Many animals do have empathy and they act on it so I don't see any difference.
There is nothing fundamentally different between animals an men only that we are way smarter and more complicated. Especially all our emotional traits are already present in lower animals as they aren't all so special. It is mostly our superior ratio that makes everything more problematic and us more creative.

Coyotes use the other members of the pack to do what they cannot do by themselves. But when there is a kill the strong fill their bellies first. There is no benevolence in animals coming together to serve their own selfish agenda.

And for what agenda do humans come together other than because they enjoy each others company. You can also go of and disappear into the forest why not do it. Why does a dog miss you as soon as you leave the house and is insanely happy when you come back. Coyotes don't stick together because they hunt better in groups. They don't reason out stuff like that. They stick together because they like company it is a character trait that evolution developed and made them better hunters.
The strong get the first bite was no different with humans when ressources were still so scarce that it wasn't worth it to desperately try and feed everyone. As I said being too altruistic can be counterproductive from an evolutionary POV.
Not every animal is overflowing with empathy but some do have empathy. Cats and dogs most certainly. Throw them out into the wild cats are murderous serial killers. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/cats_actually_kill
At home when our dog had an operation three young cats who where just in the play around, run around like crazy, damage everything, phase slept the whole time near the dog and even licked her. They are the most selfish beasts we keep as pets but they don't lack empathy entirely.

Suppose we stop feeding a quadriplegic sibling because they do not aid the survival of our group. The group would be better fit to survive if they x'd this fifth wheel. Is that what you would do? and would you not be the first to condemn those who did? But you say animals are moral when they do such things.

You cannot hold every animal to the same moral standard as us humans who live in a world with much more ressources such that we don't seek food 24/7 and we even feel responsible for ideas of states and various wider nets. Evolution as it worked for millions of years and for animals still has little influence over what we do today with our medicine and time. Morality changes it did when the germanic tribes live in Europe 20 centuries ago and when national states where founded and now again with globalization where different cultures have to get along.
What I said is that animals also have some morality that is only different from ours in what it tries to achieve and the capabilities of the animals in question. We humans today hold the social ideal of an empathic altruism much higher because we can and those of us that do simply won over those that don't. I also condemn the stoning of women because they where raped by someone but among other cultures that is morally right. The feminist will eventually win because economic data alone suggest that empowering women and not treating them like rubbish possessions helps. Would you now suggest that Islamists in some Afghan village just lack Morality and are fundamentally different from us or was it just that life taught them something else. Doesn't mean it is all the same and equal but the basic concept of Morality is there just the same only the reasoning and the rules are different. Which one will outlive the other is the mechanism of evolution. Evolution doesn't care if the fundamentalist islamists just resist change and the we rich humanists keep having fewer and fewer children in a few hundred years humanists might not exist anymore. (Unlikely but that is the indifference of the mechanism)
However to govern life in a community of social interdependent creatures some form of Morality exists and the more intelligent they are the more complex it gets. Evolution IMO couldn't bring immoral intelligent social creatures about. Introducing morality in a higher and higher degree is essential. The social part would then add no fitness and social structures would immediately dissolve and animals would just stop being more social the smarter and more calculatingly egoistic they get.

[Zetesis Apistia]

In my text you can actually insert into any mention the theory/mechanism of evolution and it will work. Evolution has no mind and it makes no adjustments it is just the term that summarizes the mechanism or the theory of what happens when stuff dies of and other stuff replicates faster.

Please forgive my political incorrectness. I was merely making the point that evolution, however you choose to define it, is a process that doesn't think, it only looks to better benefit its target. It is a very selfish process by it's very nature.

Why does evolution have attributes such as selfish if it doesn't think? I think the sticker of a psychological characteristic to a mechanism says you are ignoring the point you tried to make in the sentence immediately thereafter.

Evolution is instinctive. We do alot of things instinctively without having to think. Every animal is selfish by nature including humans. If that isn't true why do we need rules and people to enforce them everywhere we go? Because every law that is established is intended to prohibit thoughtless selfish crimes against the innocent.

Let me go a different route her. I see evolution, which I do agree with to some degree, and morality as two completely different animals. Evolution is a very selfish process which only looks to aid the strong and weed out the weak. Morality on the other hand finds its roots in benevolence. Benevolence does not look to aid its own survival, but the survival of others that may well be weaker than the benefactor. One is selfish and the other is selfless. Morality and evolution cannot come from the same source.

I think you just repeat over and over the same logical error. You see Evolution as doing something on purpose. Benevolence is not contradictory to any characteristic of evolution because evolution is indifferent to anything that gives one an edge. Benevolence is a character trait important to the survival of social animals. Evolution doesn't care whether one is selfish or no selfless, all that matters is that animal A has more offspring than B if it achieves such via supporting each other better in a group or in teams fine why not. Ants, fish, birds need big groups and sometimes only limited rules for it. Apes, wolves have more complicated rules and hierarchies. Even without the social group benevolence can be found in the mothers of almost all mammals as a vital character trait that is absolutely necessary for the survival of the young. Do vultures show food sources to other vultures out of cold smart reasoning? Thinking ahead and guessing that if I do that they will help me another time and I cannot eat all that anyway? Probably not. They probably don't do the philosophical reasoning but simply some started and those behaviors have been passed on as good behavior that was useful enough that the egoistic vultures died out and most vultures tell others. They probably think that is just the right thing to do, like the mother thinks caring for her children is the right thing, or somehow emotionally satisfying.

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.

Animals are driven by affection and fear. Neither of them come from a benevolent root.

And if you work overtime to pay for the christmas presents for your vultures at home that has nothing to do with affection I guess? Honestly that statement just makes no sense whatsoever and I don't think it requires a paragraph to explain just some thinking.

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. 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,

[Bust Nak]

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...

That's not a case of nature selecting the weak. Those who have what you call guilt (I call it empathy) are selected for because having it makes them stronger. Which is exactly what survival of the fit enough describes.

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?

Weak desire can never suppress a stronger desire. I think you are simply misjudging how strong some desires are or not taking into account all the desires in play.

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

Firstly, I want to make it absolutely clear that "what is right for you may not be right for me" can mean two very different things. It could mean "I think action X is right but you may think the same action is wrong" or it could mean "action X is right when I do it but the same action may be wrong when you do it." I am talking about the first meaning here: I simply judge according to what is right for me.

[PhiloKGB]

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.

If that isn't true why do we need rules and people to enforce them everywhere we go?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

[Mr. Bultitude]

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...

That's not a case of nature selecting the weak. Those who have what you call guilt (I call it empathy) are selected for because having it makes them stronger. Which is exactly what survival of the fit enough describes.

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?

Weak desire can never suppress a stronger desire. I think you are simply misjudging how strong some desires are or not taking into account all the desires in play.

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

Firstly, I want to make it absolutely clear that "what is right for you may not be right for me" can mean two very different things. It could mean "I think action X is right but you may think the same action is wrong" or it could mean "action X is right when I do it but the same action may be wrong when you do it." I am talking about the first meaning here: I simply judge according to what is right for me.

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.
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. 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. 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?
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.

[PhiloKGB]

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.

I'm not a strict evolutionary moralist so this is just a thought experiment, but what if evolution really did produce some basic moral feelings? Wouldn't a moral system produced by adaptation to the environment be a very good system by definition?

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. 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.

I would argue that 8% (or whatever) unemployment is not a species-threatening condition. Overpopulation, however, is more interesting. Our first-world solutions are many, but one is simply to ignore it where it doesn't impinge on our daily routine. We throw money and food at the problem and, while we don't kill anyone deliberately, we don't find ourselves terribly put out if people are dying from starvation in China or India.

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?

Well, we're not going to get the best morality from evolution. We get versions that are slightly more environment-appropriate than the last.

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.

Feel free to provide an objective morality that is not simply authoritarianism in disguise.

[Mr. Bultitude]

I'm not a strict evolutionary moralist so this is just a thought experiment, but what if evolution really did produce some basic moral feelings? Wouldn't a moral system produced by adaptation to the environment be a very good system by definition?

Very interesting, but I fail imagine a moral system given to us by evolution that is not just a set of instincts. Perhaps you could expand?

Well, we're not going to get the best morality from evolution. We get versions that are slightly more environment-appropriate than the last.

I agree that we will not get the best morality from evolution at first, but evolution tends to select the stronger over the weaker. So if evolution continues the way it will begin to have us feel empathy at the right times and be unmerciful at others since this make us as a species stronger. This is not an argument against evolution morality, but I am showing that if evolution morality is true, then that is where mankind is headed.

Feel free to provide an objective morality that is not simply authoritarianism in disguise.

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. Many evolutionists say this is due to instinct. We pick some instincts over others because those instincts are stronger. 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. The answer is morality. 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.

[PhiloKGB]

Very interesting, but I fail imagine a moral system given to us by evolution that is not just a set of instincts. Perhaps you could expand?

There may very well be an instinctual component to an evolutionary morality. Since the intellectual brain is a much more recent addition, how we think about our instincts would be the morality proper.

I agree that we will not get the best morality from evolution at first, but evolution tends to select the stronger over the weaker.

Not really. Better to say the best fit or most well-adapted.

So if evolution continues the way it will begin to have us feel empathy at the right times and be unmerciful at others since this make us as a species stronger. This is not an argument against evolution morality, but I am showing that if evolution morality is true, then that is where mankind is headed.

Okay.

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. Many evolutionists say this is due to instinct. We pick some instincts over others because those instincts are stronger. 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. The answer is morality.

I don't know about that. Even nonhuman animals routinely display situational instincts. Further, humans do not universally recognize "war time."

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.

What do you mean by "comes from God"?