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]

Again, objective morality would be a set of absolute standards that govern how we are supposed to behave.

How we are supposed to behave in order to achieve what? Good chances of survival and successfull reproduction. And those instincts are a result of objective natural processes and not subjective opinions.

[Bust Nak]

Wouldn't it be good for an organism with a survival instinct to survive even though the organism has no clue what "moral values" are?

On the surface it looks like a straight forward question but there are nuances that you might or might not be aware of. The answer depends on what you mean exactly. Here are some interpretations I can see, and the corresponding answer:

a) "Wouldn't it be good independent from any perspective for an organism, one with a survival instinct but no clue what "moral values" are, to survive?"
That would be a loaded question that presumes goodness exist outside of an organism's understanding of moral value.

b) Wouldn't it be good from an organism's perspective for it to survive, an organism with a survival instinct but no clue what "moral values" are?
It would be nether good nor not good, as the organism has no concept of good.

c) Wouldn't it be good from the answerer's perspective for an organism, with a survival instinct but no clue what "moral values" are, to survive?
That depends on how I felt about the creature in question. I have a particular dislike for cockroaches for example.

d) Wouldn't it be to the advantage of the organism, one with a survival instinct but no clue what "moral values" are, for it to survive?
Yes, it would be to the organism's advantage for it to survive. This topic is on morality, I charge you with equivocation fallacy.

So if no subjective opinions are involved it's an objective process creating an objective standard?

Standards are prescribed or agreed up on. Evolution, a non-thinking natural process, created no standards.

[Artie]

d) Wouldn't it be to the advantage of the organism, one with a survival instinct but no clue what "moral values" are, for it to survive?
Yes, it would be to the organism's advantage for it to survive. This topic is on morality, I charge you with equivocation fallacy.

This is the one that applies. A synonym for advantageous is good http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/advantageous

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 262 by Artie]

Then my accusation stands. Pointing out that survival is advantageous to an organism, does nothing for the argument for objective morality.

[Danmark]

I've written that I don't even believe in an "objective standard," that, that is the wrong way to look at the question. I wrote "The instinctive response is powerful evidence at least some of our morality comes from natural evolution."

And did natural evolution base that morality on subjective opinion?

Danmark:
No. Evolution does not think at all. It does not "base" anything on anything. Tribes that did not cooperate died out. Tribes that had an instinct to protect other tribe members were more likely to survive. There is nothing conscious or planned about the process of evolution.

So if no subjective opinions are involved it's an objective process creating an objective standard?

As I've said several times, I don't think "objective" and "subjective" are the most useful terms to use for this question. I found an essay that explains part of the problem:
https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/07 ... -nonsense/
This debate seems hampered by a lack of clarity on what “objective� and “subjective� moralities are. Coyne gave a sensible definition of “objective� morality as being the stance that something can be discerned to be “morally wrong� through reasoning about facts about the world, rather than by reference to human opinion.

If morality were objective, it would have to be conceivable that the statement “George’s actions were wrong and he deserves to be punished� would be true even if every human in the world were of the opinion, “George’s actions seem fine to me, perhaps even laudable�.
....
Subjective does not mean unimportant. A subjective morality is one rooted in human feelings and desires. These are the things that are most important to us, indeed the only things important to us!
....
Our morality is evolved.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, said Dobzhansky, and morality certainly makes no sense except as the product of our evolutionary heritage. Our moral sense is one of a number of systems developed by evolution to do a job: the immune systems counters infection, the visual system gives us information about the world, and our moral feelings are there as a social glue to enable us to cooperate with other humans.

As a product of blind Darwinian evolution, our morals will have developed solely from the pragmatic consideration of what works, what enables us to benefit from cooperation and thus leave more descendants. For interacting with another human, what matters is not what is “objectively� moral (whatever that means), but what that human considers to be moral.
Rooting morality in “God� is still arbitrary

A favourite argument of the religious is that you can’t have objective morality without a god. And they are right. What they don’t realise, though, is that you also can’t have an objective morality with a god. After all, plumping for “God’s opinion� instead of human opinion is equally subjective. http://tinyurl.com/hkc6qaa

This brings us to one of the very interesting examples that has been discussed here, the fact that when a lion takes over a pride, he kills the young male cubs. This may be immoral in the sense that some of the lions do not like this act. It may be moral in the sense that it may help the species survive since, theoretically, more successful genes [at least for fighting] are passed on.

Now for a human example. In a world of limited resources we may spend, say, one $million to keep a single premature, compromised and genetically disadvantaged infant alive. For the sake of the argument let us say that money could alternatively been spent to provide good nutrition and health care to keep 1000 healthy infants alive.

What is the correct moral decision?

[Artie]

[Replying to post 262 by Artie]

Then my accusation stands. Pointing out that survival is advantageous to an organism, does nothing for the argument for objective morality.

1. No subjective opinions were involved when evolution and natural selection gave us the survival instinct.
2. For an organism with a survival instinct survival is advantageous.
3. A synonym for advantageous is good.
4. No subjective opinions on morality were involved declaring that survival is advantageous/good. It's a result of objective natural processes.

[Artie]

Now for a human example. In a world of limited resources we may spend, say, one $million to keep a single premature, compromised and genetically disadvantaged infant alive. For the sake of the argument let us say that money could alternatively been spent to provide good nutrition and health care to keep 1000 healthy infants alive.

What is the correct moral decision?[/size]

In the second world war it was decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki partly because they reckoned that the suffering and loss of life would be much smaller than if they didn't and the war continued. Was that immoral?

If theoretically you were in a position where your death would save 1000 others from dying would you say it would be immoral to shoot you?

[OpenYourEyes]

Now for a human example. In a world of limited resources we may spend, say, one $million to keep a single premature, compromised and genetically disadvantaged infant alive. For the sake of the argument let us say that money could alternatively been spent to provide good nutrition and health care to keep 1000 healthy infants alive.

What is the correct moral decision?[/size]

In the second world war it was decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki partly because they reckoned that the suffering and loss of life would be much smaller than if they didn't and the war continued. Was that immoral?

If theoretically you were in a position where your death would save 1000 others from dying would you say it would be immoral to shoot you?

Wouldnt that be murder, something which even you are against?
No society thinks like this.

We should also keep in mind that we are becoming increasingly proficient at using 'artificial selection'. Perhaps down the line humans can be cloned rather with a preselected genetic makeup. Then we will become objective since we can select or create our own instincts (Artie's logic)!!!!

[Danmark]

Now for a human example. In a world of limited resources we may spend, say, one $million to keep a single premature, compromised and genetically disadvantaged infant alive. For the sake of the argument let us say that money could alternatively been spent to provide good nutrition and health care to keep 1000 healthy infants alive.

What is the correct moral decision?[/size]

In the second world war it was decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki partly because they reckoned that the suffering and loss of life would be much smaller than if they didn't and the war continued. Was that immoral?

If theoretically you were in a position where your death would save 1000 others from dying would you say it would be immoral to shoot you?

Wouldnt that be murder, something which even you are against?
No society thinks like this.

We should also keep in mind that we are becoming increasingly proficient at using 'artificial selection'. Perhaps down the line humans can be cloned rather with a preselected genetic makeup. Then we will become objective since we can select or create our own instincts (Artie's logic)!!!!

I think this is another example of the hopelessness of the "objective vs. subjective" analysis as well as trying to reduce morality to absolutes as if they were handed down by a god.

Morality in general is something we've inherited thru natural selection. It results in an instinct to "be nice," to cooperate, have empathy, and in general be fair and treat others the way we want to be treated. But along with this instinct or value, we've developed big brains capable of abstraction and advanced thinking that allows us to think several moves ahead.

The simplistic "murder is wrong" is not much help when we are talking about allocating limited resources in a way to do the greatest good for the greatest number. Is murdering a Hitler 'wrong' if it prevents millions of deaths and incalculable suffering?

[OpenYourEyes]

Now for a human example. In a world of limited resources we may spend, say, one $million to keep a single premature, compromised and genetically disadvantaged infant alive. For the sake of the argument let us say that money could alternatively been spent to provide good nutrition and health care to keep 1000 healthy infants alive.

What is the correct moral decision?[/size]

In the second world war it was decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki partly because they reckoned that the suffering and loss of life would be much smaller than if they didn't and the war continued. Was that immoral?

If theoretically you were in a position where your death would save 1000 others from dying would you say it would be immoral to shoot you?

How does that relate to one male lion, killing another male lion just to take over? Was the male lion that loss the fight a bad caretaker and if not your analogy about WWII doesn't add up. There was no loss or gain, just a replacement done by force.

As Danmark has previously said, we have evolved beyond just thinking based on instincts. IN fact, that makes total sense when we KNOW our instincts and by just knowing about them we can change them by changing our environment and thinking.