Objective Morality?

[enviousintheeverafter]

It is often claimed that objective morality only exists if God does- that without God, there is no basis for claiming that morality is objective, that anything like objective moral facts or duties exist. Of course, for this argument to have any force, it needs to be true, or probably true, that objective morality does in fact exist.

So does it? Why think there are such things as objective moral facts or duties?

[Artie]

Ideally, an objective moral system should actually work perfectly towards a "good" end, assuming that there is supposed to be a "good" end which again begs the question.

Obviously ever since the beginning reproduction and survival have been the "good ends" and those "ends" were determined for organisms long before organisms themselves got the ability to subjectively start thinking about "moral values".

[OpenYourEyes]

Ideally, an objective moral system should actually work perfectly towards a "good" end, assuming that there is supposed to be a "good" end which again begs the question.

Obviously ever since the beginning reproduction and survival have been the "good ends" and those "ends" were determined for organisms long before organisms themselves got the ability to subjectively start thinking about "moral values".

"Survival" falls into 'natural selection'. Basically survival is what gets passed on to the next generation. So your point still falls short of my point below and it doesn't really answer for the is vs. ought point.

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This is apparent in the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

........
In other words, just because something survives, doesn't necessarily make it good.

[PghPanther]

No............an existential objective morality does not exist.

Morality as exercised by humans is an evolved trait from our survival as a highly cognitive/communication social species. Where our survival depended on our social behavioral traits of trust, care and cooperate with each other.

Humans have many attributes cognitively to master their environment but we lack the physical senses/skills to fight off predators individually with our bare hands or run away with such a slow bipedal gait......so only those humans who would trust each other with their very lives in cooperating and hunt/defend against prey together could overcome the physical superiority of those animals. Those who did not trust care or cooperate with other humans to help defend everyone in the tribe (aka the lone wolf individual) wandered off and was lunch for a physical savvy predator. Over many generations of the environmental pressures for humans to hunt together or be hunted naturally selected those having a social bonding for each other survived.

This bonding of trust, care and cooperation started with local family tribes and expanded over time once agriculture was developed into larger groups. At that time it was necessary to take those social survival traits of trust, care and cooperation and fashion them into a moral construct to manage the division of labor in larger groups and later whole societies and nations.....

As a result of this process our morality as a social species is ubiquitous to most humans (exceptions among us are sociopaths for example) and this is what is confused as being existentially objective to the theist.

..the theist says that moral law is written on the heart of all men by God.........yet they have no answer for the sociopath....

Science says that moral law is a construct from our social survival traits of trust, care and cooperation which may be lacking in those with a genetic marker mutation that causes sociopathic behavior. So it is not universal but close enough to it to confuse the theist into thinking it has an existential objectivity.

All mammal display varying rudimentary developments of "morality" within their social groups, especially our closest cousins cognitively the great apes.....

...mammals are born live and warm blooded which need huge caloric intact and the bonding with parents for that food source through much of their infancy and in higher cognitive mammals through childhood as the brain continues to develop.......this cements much of our social bonding early in life.

Its high time the theist wake up and study some sociobiology and learn the facts behind our morality and while they are at it also understand the emergent properties of matter from how subatomic particles can compose brain cells and how the electro/chemical transmissions of the neuro network composed of those cells reach a critical mass in that network to develop conscious thought and self awareness.....

....it is not from some imagined supernatural personal being claimed by ancient prescientific superstitious cultures who had no understanding of what I just explained......

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 231 by OpenYourEyes]

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection.

So, now, it seems that you define "objective" as "perfect". I don't know how a fallible human being gets to have any sort of "perfect" knowledge.

Please explain how you can know anything perfectly. ( You can go ahead and use perfect knowledge of morality as an example )

ARE humans perfect in any way?

[Artie]

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect.

Never said you needed to be perfect.

This is apparent in the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases,

And that is not good because it reduces their chances of survival.

plants may not have the genes to survive a drought,

Which is not good for the plants.

or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry.

And that is not good because it reduces the predators chance of survival.

[Ancient of Years]

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect.

Never said you needed to be perfect.

“Good enough� is a moving target. Because of that “perfection� cannot even be defined.

This is apparent in the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases,

And that is not good because it reduces their chances of survival.

Depends. The gene that helps protect against malaria can also result in sickle cell anemia. ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ are not clearly separable when it comes to evolution.

plants may not have the genes to survive a drought,

Which is not good for the plants.

Depends. Genetic variation in a population may lead to the ability to tolerate higher salt levels (due to reduced water supply) becoming more prevalent whereas it previously had to compete with the fresh water only variety. The surviving genetic lines could then have the opportunity to dominate the local area, produce more seed and thereby spread to other areas inimical to the fresh water variety.

or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry.

And that is not good because it reduces the predators chance of survival.

A predator population fast enough to catch prey every time will quickly deplete the food supply and die out. Unless of course the prey population has become too large for its food supply and is in danger of dying out. In that case, reducing the size of the prey population will help prolong its existence and therefore the existence of the predator population.

In the typical case found in nature there will be an approximately stable balance. Predators will be fast enough (or strong enough, or smart enough or … ) to catch the slow, the old, the sick, the injured, the stupid etc. but not the typical specimen of the prey population. It is not surprising that the prey who are caught are often those who would be less likely to produce a viable next generation but still compete for the food supply of this generation. And so a rough balance is achieved … until the next environmental change.

[OpenYourEyes]

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect.

Never said you needed to be perfect.

I dont see how your point addresses "good" in a moral sense. If natural selection is not perfect then traits that are harmful can also survive, take viruses for instance. If a species dies off or survives based on food supply, how does that explain if swinging is immoral? Even if you say the culture is the environment that natural selection acts on then why does the culture vary and change and even reverts back (reverse evolution?) to ancient standards and practices (we often repeat same mistakes made in past history) if natural selection led to objective morals?


My point is that natural selection does not have a moral goal in mind, it's mechanistic and mindless. Its a process in that if your traits are "good enough" (good in a non-moral sense), they get passed on.

[Artie]

The gene that helps protect against malaria can also result in sickle cell anemia.

It's the other way around. The defective gene combination that results in sickle cell anemia protects against malaria.

In the typical case found in nature there will be an approximately stable balance. Predators will be fast enough (or strong enough, or smart enough or … ) to catch the slow, the old, the sick, the injured, the stupid etc. but not the typical specimen of the prey population. It is not surprising that the prey who are caught are often those who would be less likely to produce a viable next generation but still compete for the food supply of this generation. And so a rough balance is achieved … until the next environmental change.

That's the whole point. As many as possible of both populations survive and that is good.

[Artie]

My point is that natural selection does not have a moral goal in mind, it's mechanistic and mindless. Its a process in that if your traits are "good enough" (good in a non-moral sense), they get passed on.

Evolution and natural selection gave us the survival instinct. We try to survive and avoid dying. Survival good death bad. The goal is to survive and avoid death. So we say that it's good that we survive, good if we manage to avoid death. So it's good if we help people survive and avoid death, bad if we cause death such as murder. A definition of good is "that which is morally right; righteousness." Therefore helping people survive good/moral/right, murder bad/immoral/wrong. Simple logic.

[Danmark]

There's no such thing as "objective" morality. Thru natural selection societies, including those populated by species other than homo sapiens, has determined that cooperation, empathy and a sense of fairness have resulted in success. Because of this virtually all cultures have agreed on a system of morals that prizes those qualities.

Then we have 'irrational' morality; a morality that no sense at all, or at least no sense outside a very specific time, place and culture. For silliness like that, it requires religion. Only religion can come up with foolishness like:
"Don't wear blended fabrics."
"No meat on Fridays."
"No meat at all"
"This nutritious food offends "the Lord" [even tho' he made it].
"This sexual practice is offensive, but killing children of the 'wrong' tribe is good."

Looking to religion for morality is like looking for the Fox to guard the chickens.

What I find so laughably [actually 'sadly'] obtuse is the same people who HATE 'sharia law' want to impose their own version of religious law on secular society.

How DO these boneheads come up with this nonsense?