Is secular morality arbitrary?

[FinalEnigma]

I've been wanting to create this thread for a while, and particularly, I am hoping that Jester joins us, since he gave me the impetus to create this thread.

Afterlife
Logical basis for the objective reality of ethics

The above was stated as a benefit of a theistic worldview. This and another comment sparked this thread.

I believe it is your position(Jester(and many theists for that matter)) that all secular morality necessarily has an arbitrary basis, correct?



First of all, what is morality? I propose the following definition:
Moral actions are those which are to the benefit of fellow humans(you may generalize this to living creatures, or specify it to actions which are of the greatest benefit as you like).


I have a few thoughts on this, first I would like to approach it from an evolutionary direction. I'm sure everyone has read the evolutionary explanation for morality, but I would like to point something out.

Evolutionary basis for morality

One major theory for the existence and origin of morality is that those humans which acted cooperatively and possessed a higher sense of morals had a higher rate of survival than those which did not, and so, it eventually came that the majority of humans were moral creatures.
Arbitrary implies random, and if evolution is the basis for morality, then moral actions are those which are the most likely to propagate your genes, and, vicariously, moral actions are those which benefit your society as a whole, because a stable society stands the greatest chance of allowing your genes to propagate. The above is decidedly non-random.


Arbitrary morality
This is a somewhat different approach. If morality is arbitrary, then so what?

Is something which is arbitrary necessarily wrong? Think of it this way. no society I know of claims that things which are harmful to society are good and moral, and I would be fairly confidant in saying that it is true that no society believes such.

This being the case, the word morality is used to describe actions which are beneficial to society.

Why are these actions moral? Because they benefit society.
Why is benefiting society moral? Because benefiting society is what is moral.

Sounds circular doesn't it? How about this?

Why is a red pen red? Because it's color is that which is called red.
Why is that color called red? Because that color is the one that was defined as red.

Things which benefit society are moral because that is how morality is defined. It become a tautology.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Note my opponent's arguments in the following thread:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10416

An evolutionary basis for morality escapes your false Dichotomy.

So this morality is determined by what humans need to survive and what conditions these things must be gotten under. While the former is largely universally among humans, the latter is very different depending on the environment, as is evident by the fact that different cultures have different moral values. Which culture is the evolutionary basis for morality? There are some generally universally laws that are present in most cultures. Do these constitute this evolutionary basis for morality? If the circumstances under which humans must survive were to change, would this morality change?

Just so you know, this post is largely me trying to fully understand your position, not oppose it or argue against it.

[FinalEnigma]

Note my opponent's arguments in the following thread:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10416

An evolutionary basis for morality escapes your false Dichotomy.

So this morality is determined by what humans need to survive and what conditions these things must be gotten under. While the former is largely universally among humans, the latter is very different depending on the environment, as is evident by the fact that different cultures have different moral values. Which culture is the evolutionary basis for morality? There are some generally universally laws that are present in most cultures. Do these constitute this evolutionary basis for morality? If the circumstances under which humans must survive were to change, would this morality change?

Just so you know, this post is largely me trying to fully understand your position, not oppose it or argue against it.

Evolutionary morality basically works on the principle that cooperation and compassion between people increase the likelihood of their survival - as well as their attractiveness as a mate. Would you rather marry and have children with a kind and generous doctor or teacher? or a violent and cruel business owner? the first? so would most people. This means their genes are more likely to propagate - thus morality would evolve.

No culture is itself the evolutionary basis. The reason why laws change and morality seemingly changes between societies is that the outgrowth of this morality changes, but the morality itself does not. What you consider to be moral or immoral is partially decided by your society. Your tendency to be a moral person is likely genetic(not to say that you are born moral or immoral, only that a tendency is there, shaped by your upbringing)

If the circumstances in which humans have to survive changed, then in time, morality would probably change. If it became a beneficial trait to enjoy inflicting pain on people, people with this tendency would become more common, and morality would likely reflect this. However, this would take an incredibly long time to become prevalent - dependent upon the severity of the stimulus.

[Angel]

First of all, what is morality? I propose the following definition:
Moral actions are those which are to the benefit of fellow humans(you may generalize this to living creatures, or specify it to actions which are of the greatest benefit as you like).

Your definition is a good start but it falls short due to the lack of mention of specific standards that would benefit mankind overall. As a theist, I'd also consider morals not only being of benefit amongst humans but also between God and us, and some may even add for the benefit of nature as well. Then you'd also need logical or scientific justification of those standards. So far, one specific standard I know where most would agree is to not harm anyone although some would say that there are justified reasons to harm which then makes the standard a little blurred.

I have a few thoughts on this, first I would like to approach it from an evolutionary direction. I'm sure everyone has read the evolutionary explanation for morality, but I would like to point something out.

Evolutionary basis for morality

One major theory for the existence and origin of morality is that those humans which acted cooperatively and possessed a higher sense of morals had a higher rate of survival than those which did not, and so, it eventually came that the majority of humans were moral creatures.
Arbitrary implies random, and if evolution is the basis for morality, then moral actions are those which are the most likely to propagate your genes, and, vicariously, moral actions are those which benefit your society as a whole, because a stable society stands the greatest chance of allowing your genes to propagate. The above is decidedly non-random.

Even if your explanation for morals meant that morals weren't arbitrary but apparently that still doesn't show morals to be logical nor objective. Mankind consists of different cultures with different moral standards, and even different standards within an individual culture itself, like the United States (liberal standards, conservative standards, etc). Those differences can and have definitely caused chaos throughout history and even now. So, I don't see how morals in your explanation would be logically good, even if not arbitrary, since they go against one purpose for morals, i.e. to keep order.


On another note, I agree that there is an evolutionary basis for morality but where I disagree with you at is using the propagation of genes as a measure for which morals are good or not. I would say that the strongest traits propagate and not all of those traits are always going to be good or beneficial to mankind overall. I really only see your explanation working on a localized level (as in applying to a specific or an individual culture) but on a grand level (as in applying to all cultures, collectively) it fails for the reasons I mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Arbitrary morality
This is a somewhat different approach. If morality is arbitrary, then so what?

Then anything goes. Whatever, someone comes up with as being good, that is.
That would lead to chaos right off the bat, whereas at least now, our illusion of accepting and respecting morals as if they're truly good or bad (which we do when we create and agree on laws for society to follow) is our "crutch" to keep us *somewhat* from destroying each other.

Is something which is arbitrary necessarily wrong? Think of it this way. no society I know of claims that things which are harmful to society are good and moral, and I would be fairly confidant in saying that it is true that no society believes such.

To answer your question, it is bad. Also, your explanation relies on morals NOT being arbitrary, otherwise, you'd have different views on what's harmful or even those who don't care if others are harmed. You're most likely not really arguing for arbitrary morals here.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

Evolutionary morality basically works on the principle that cooperation and compassion between people increase the likelihood of their survival - as well as their attractiveness as a mate.

Compassion isn't always advantageous though. Especially when resources are limited, wouldn't evolution condition us to take on an us and them mentality? In such a situation, would compassion still constitute evolutionary morality or is it whatever is best for survival in each individual situation?

[Treefur]

Evolutionary morality basically works on the principle that cooperation and compassion between people increase the likelihood of their survival - as well as their attractiveness as a mate.

Compassion isn't always advantageous though. Especially when resources are limited, wouldn't evolution condition us to take on an us and them mentality? In such a situation, would compassion still constitute evolutionary morality or is it whatever is best for survival in each individual situation?

Compassion can be categorized as ingrained biological morality developed through the generations. Evolution wouldn't suddenly change if one generation needs to survive rather than care for others. What's ingrained is already there whether it's required at the moment or not.

[Cathar1950]

Evolutionary morality basically works on the principle that cooperation and compassion between people increase the likelihood of their survival - as well as their attractiveness as a mate.

Compassion isn't always advantageous though. Especially when resources are limited, wouldn't evolution condition us to take on an us and them mentality? In such a situation, would compassion still constitute evolutionary morality or is it whatever is best for survival in each individual situation?

Compassion can be categorized as ingrained biological morality developed through the generations. Evolution wouldn't suddenly change if one generation needs to survive rather than care for others. What's ingrained is already there whether it's required at the moment or not.

The instincts for social bonding and self preservation have served our species well.
It has given us and others an advantage over others and the ability to live.
We see bonding in other social animals. Culture and language not only gives us more options but allows for flexibly meaning and emotions which become attached to our meanings and behaviour as well as how we experience the world. We have evolved to live among others as well as to survive in the world that gives us substance and context.
Culture language and meaning have allowed us to extent our reach and limits.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

If morality is an evolutionary trait, a biological necessity to our survival, written in our very genes, then why do just as many people choose to ignore these "biological imperatives" as always have?

Wouldn't survival of the fittest have bred the "evil" ones out?

[Treefur]

If morality is an evolutionary trait, a biological necessity to our survival, written in our very genes, then why do just as many people choose to ignore these "biological imperatives" as always have?

Wouldn't survival of the fittest have bred the "evil" ones out?

First you would have to define what "evil" is on a biological sense. Murder can suit the purpose of self preservation, as can rape suit the purpose of genetic continuation. So if anything, what we consider evil has a good chance of always surviving.
But that goes head to head against our social nature; our imperative to live cooperatively to flurish.
That could easily explain why there even is the concept of good and evil. We as a species exist on both sides of the spectrum. We know what evil is, because we know what good is. Good is the betterment of the species as a whole, evil is the selfish betterment perhaps. You can't have one without the other as they are dependent on each other denotatively and conceptually.

[McCulloch]

If morality is an evolutionary trait, a biological necessity to our survival, written in our very genes, then why do just as many people choose to ignore these "biological imperatives" as always have?

Wouldn't survival of the fittest have bred the "evil" ones out?

Human society would not thrive if everyone was always good. We need a certain number (not too high a proportion) of rebels, of those who push the envelope, of those who challenge the established norms. Without that trait, we would still be in caves and hunting mammoths.

[theAtheistofnoIllusions]

So rape is just a challenge to accepted norms, a pushing of the envelope?

Now we're getting in the dirty.

So a certain amount of rape (not too high in proportion) is good for society?

So rape could then be considered a "good" then?