I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to offer an idea I've been thinking about lately and see if it makes sense to you. Here it goes.bluegreenearth wrote:
To the best of my ability thus far, I cannot deduce a way to objectively ground morality; even if a God exists.
My thought is that morality is objective in the sense that it exists, must necessarily exist and be practiced by all animal species in order to drastically increase their ability to survive and thrive. I would propose that it's objectively advantageous and necessary to our evolution, as deviance from the moral landscape and our innate sense reciprocity will result in premature removal from the gene pool.
I would further propose that morality has an objective source - coexistence. If I didn't have to co-exist with another human, morality really has no basis or meaning. Lying, stealing, cheating, killing, loving, helping, saving, etc. are moral actions that don't exist without co-existence.
Within what I call the objective moral enterprise and the universal mandate to practice morality, how it is practiced is subjective. That depends on whatever cultural framework (moral agency) you participate in. I think this is where the concept of god as an objective moral source fails, because gods are built within cultures that attempt to construct some sort of unified canon of moral values that make sense to them and helps unify a group to accomplish societal goals. This is why cultures perceive their framework and chosen deity as the author and source of morality as a whole. Such perception seems further justified when a large group of people unified under common goals makes it easier to progress, thrive and in some cases dominate as a society, empire or nation.
While our moral enterprise consists of many diverse moral agencies encompassing 7 billion diverse moral agents, there are moral practices that I would suggest are functionally objective - grounded on Confucius' golden rule: Don't do unto others what you would not done to yourself - empathy being the driving factor. "Don't murder" is an example of a moral precept that is functionally objective.
However, killing the the name of your god, while seen as murder by the rest of the world, is virtuous killing to the extreme ideologist. How do we reconcile that?
I think the answer simply lies in the fact that our modern world is dominated by societies, cultures (moral agencies if you will) that agree that such an ideological practice is wrong. Our collective moral influence dominates to the point where such an ideological practice is wrong, a moral decision that is functionally objective based on the observable evidence.
I'll stop there. I know I dumped a lot out without fully explaining each point. Just want to see if you are tracking with me, or if I am way off base. I know I'll have to elaborate my last point much further.