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?

[OpenYourEyes]

So once again, do you have an objective epistemology for your view of morality? In other words, how can I take your moral parameter, and derive specific rules that would benefit all or most areas of life, and how can I objectively verify that those rules are indeed correct for life. I ask this question because it makes no sense to claim that objective morals exist and yet we have no way of knowing what they are which would mean we are likely not following them.

We are a social species. The objectively moral action is the action that is beneficial for survival and/or reproduction. Simply make sure your acts are generally beneficial to survival of individuals and society. Those are objectively moral acts.

Survival is a very broad concept and can encompass many different/opposing systems (morality, etc). Even viruses are programmed to survive and reproduce. Objective morality is supposed to about a set of behavioral standards that are accurate, consistent, absolute for man to follow as opposed to a subjective/relativistic system. At best, your view is an inadequate system of morality, because while it provides a moral parameter (a shifty one at that), it fails in terms of moral epistemology in regards to specific acts. How can we know if swinging is objectively wrong? How do we know that it's objectively right/wrong to kill off all swingers just as ancient Israel culture would've done? If we use artificial selection or even clone humans, and program them to kill or to die trying, does that automatically make their acts objectively moral since they'd be following their biology so-to-speak?

On this understanding, moralities are sets of self-perpetuating and biologically-driven behaviors which encourage human cooperation. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining immediate selfishness in order to improve their evolutionary fitness. Human morality, although sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism that could undermine a group's cohesion and thereby reducing the individuals' fitness.[17]

All this is saying is that morality is rooted in biology. This does not translate to morality being objective, especially when it's up to "humans" to modify their behaviors. The problem here may be that you are not speaking about objective morality as philosophers tend to reference. So far, we both agree that morality exists, and that it is biologically-driven. However, being biologically-driven does not always translate into being what's right nor does right and wrong always apply to biology.

On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Noted. Still no signs of objective morality as far as I can tell.

[Artie]

Survival is a very broad concept and can encompass many different/opposing systems (morality, etc). Even viruses are programmed to survive and reproduce.

So it's objectively right for a virus to survive and reproduce. Since no subjective opinions decided that viruses or humans should survive and reproduce it's objectively right for us to do so and objectively wrong to do something detrimental to that.

[OpenYourEyes]

Survival is a very broad concept and can encompass many different/opposing systems (morality, etc). Even viruses are programmed to survive and reproduce.

So it's objectively right for a virus to survive and reproduce. Since no subjective opinions decided that viruses or humans should survive and reproduce it's objectively right for us to do so and objectively wrong to do something detrimental to that.

Interesting. Still no empirical justification for specific behavior or acts?! I also wonder how your view would playout with artificial selection of traits or even in my example human clones and the traits that "humans" (like you and I) select for them.

Keep this in mind also...

For their part, moral philosophers will hasten to point out that they are not primarily in the business of “explaining moral behavior� in the sense of causally explaining the origins of our capacity for moral judgment or of various associated emotional and behavioral dispositions. If a moral philosopher asks “whence morality,� she is more likely to be concerned with the justification of moral principles or the source and nature of obligation.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/

[Artie]

Interesting. Still no empirical justification for specific behavior or acts?!

Don't know what you mean. Example?

[OpenYourEyes]

Interesting. Still no empirical justification for specific behavior or acts?!

Don't know what you mean. Example?

Your guideline or parameter for rules is whatever enhances survival. Any rules that can be derived from your guidelines are the specifics that I refer to, like Not killing, Not lying, Not committing adultery, loving your neighbor, no fornication, etc.

So given your parameter (survival), how can we know and verify what or which specific set of rules accurately (objectively) ensure survival or that are truly good for mankind to follow?

So far, we know that science does not offer us much help because it does not deal with moral values. Individual or collective experiences does not help because we often come up with different rules. Consequences does not always help because an act may not have an immediate effect and we won't know until the negative effect takes place, and that's assuming we can isolate what exactly caused the negative effect on survival or society, at large.

[Artie]

So given your parameter (survival), how can we know and verify what or which specific set of rules accurately (objectively) ensure survival or that are truly good for mankind to follow?

We could for example say that the Golden Rule is a good rule to follow since people don't want to get hurt or killed so people shouldn't hurt or kill other people.

[iam1me]

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?

I believe we can speak of morality objectively. Let us start by defining, generically, what morality is: a doctrine or system of morals - or conformity thereof (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/morality?s=t).

We know that there are many different morals systems out there. Some moral systems focus upon our nature. For example: some moral systems view us as innately good (Platonism), while others view us as innately evil/corrupt (Calvinism).

If we are innately good/evil then morality becomes a bland topic: we are either good or we are evil and there is nothing we can do about it in of ourselves; it is our nature. There maybe influences on this - for example, Plato's dialogues enforce the idea that one will do what is right based upon their knowledge. The only evil, then, is a lack of knowledge/understanding.

Whether innate or not, all moral systems revolve in one fashion or another around our actions. If we are innately good then we will do good. If we are innately bad we will do bad actions. If we have freewill, then we need to consider how various factors influence our decisions and the moral quality of our actions. Do we only care about the end result, or are our intentions more important when speaking of the morality of an action?

And this is where we can really start being objective about morality: our actions. We know that 1. our actions influence ourselves, others, the environment, etc. and we know that 2. we can speak objectively about how our actions can influence ourselves, others, the environment, etc. That doesn't mean we can scientifically calculate exactly how a given action will influence everything, but we can speak logically about the likely results of a course of action.

For instance: if you attempt to go punch some random person in the face they are likely to either 1. fight back, or 2. run away and probably seek help. In either case, the stranger you attempt attack is likely going to be angry and/or scared and not at all pleased with you. This isn't a guaranteed result - maybe you found someone who happens to love street brawls and is actually pleased that you have given them an excuse to beat you up. But the above two scenarios that I listed are the likely results, which we know because we understand people, in a general sense, and society.

In the same way we can objectively evaluate the likely outcomes of an action given sufficient contextual information. We can also note when we lack sufficient information to draw a reasonable conclusion. For instance: suppose a guy moves into to kiss another person. What are the expected results of this action, how will it influence the guy, the person he attempts to kiss, or any other people? Immediately we know we need more information: is the other person a guy or a girl, and are they heterosexual, or? Are the two a couple, or what is their relationship? Is the person being kissed in a relationship with someone else? So this kind of contextual information is key to evaluating the kinds of influence that an action can have.

In the same way as contextual information influences our ability to evaluate an action from a 3rd party perspective, we will note that a person's relevant knowledge/understanding of a situation will influence how they choose to act. To build off of the previous example: suppose it is a guy and girl, and the guy is deciding whether or not to attempt to kiss her. What kinds of information might influence this? For instance: if she made it clear that she had a boyfriend, that maybe sufficient for him to decide to not do it. However, if she gives no such indication and is clearly flirting with him, he may go for it. So understanding the mindset of the person performing the action is vital to understanding why they did what they did - and for considering how different information might influence their decisions.

Now, if the guy decides to kiss the girl and her boyfriend walks in at that moment - they boyfriend is going to by angry. He will likely be angry regardless of whether the boy knew that she was dating him. However, he will be especially angry if the boy is someone who he knows and who knew that she is dating him. Contextual information at work again: how much we understand of another person's knowledge/mindset influences how we respond to their actions.

Objectively, if we understand that an action was intended to harm us then we will respond to this differently than someone accidentally harming us. Indeed, even if an action doesn't actually hurt us, but we know that it was intended to, we will treat this differently than accidentally being harmed or a narrow miss from an accidental action. If someone shoots at you and misses - you aren't going to overlook it just because they failed to carry out their intentions. You are going to view them as an active threat. Meanwhile, if someone accidentally shoots you on a hunting trip (and you live) you will probably be angry, and probably sue for medical expenses, but you aren't going to view them as someone who is out to kill you.

In the same way, if we understand that an action that harms us is intended to help us - we will treat this much differently than either accidentally being harmed or someone attacking us. For example: getting a tooth filled. A bit painful, but we don't hold that against the dentist (till we get the bill at least ); we are even thankful to the dentist because once the procedure is done we are better off.

There is an endless supply of scenarios we could look at to demonstrate these points, but I think the above examples demonstrate how we can objectively evaluate a course of action - and how we can do so from multiple angles: from the larger picture of what is actually going on, from the perspective of the person doing the action, to those potentially influenced by the action. Now we must ask: why does all this matter?

Moral systems are not without a purpose; they give us the tools to assign a moral quality to a course of action based upon such evaluations. There are "good" actions, "bad" actions, and "neutral" actions typically. A "good" action is one that helps achieves some goal of the moral system, while a bad action is one that acts contrary to the goals of the moral system. A neutral action is one that irrelevant to the concerns of the moral system.

Given a particular moral system, we can evaluate its goals/concerns - why is something considered "good" or "bad." This can be evaluated objectively, generally. For instance: in Christianity love is the stated basis for all of the commandments, and even God is said to be love. Love for whom? Love for everyone: God and our fellowman. Actions are "good" when they are done for the benefit of another, especially at a personal cost. The greatest act of love, according to scripture, is to give one's life for the sake of one's friends. A "bad" action is one that is brings unjustified harm to another. A "neutral" action might be acting in ones own self interest - but doing so while being mindful not to harm others. Like taking yourself out to a nice dinner.

Once we objectively understand the goals/concerns that a moral system is built around, we can then ask ourselves if these are goals/concerns that I personally care about? Why should I care about these things? Also, while X might be the stated goals/concerns of the moral system - does the moral system provide sufficient/efficient tools to accomplish this? Or is there a better way? So, yes, we can be objective in evaluating morality and whether something is moral under a given moral system.

Now the only question is whether there are objective goals/concerns to build a moral system around? Are there objective concerns/needs/desires that we have that we can focus upon? For this we might go back to human nature. We know, for instance, that we are social creatures. Our survival, happiness, and overall well-being are largely tied to our social circumstances. Not to say that an individual cannot benefit at the expense of the group - and surely people do. However, even in such a case the one benefiting at the expense of others is dependent upon society; if society collapses then they lose their cushy position. If they abuse society too much, then there will be repercussions for that individual. So even for the selfish individual, society is fundamental to their survival, happiness, and well-being.

So then, an objective concern to build a moral system around this conception of society: bringing people together for mutual survival, happiness, and well-being.

Now we can begin asking what kinds of actions promote mutual survival, happiness, and well-being? Generically speaking, actions done out of concern for others promote these things (aka love). If I see someone hurt, or sick, or in need and I help them - that helps them survive, makes them happy and well. If others treat me the same, helping me in my time of need, then when I need it most I will have others helping me to survive, be happy and well. To help someone comes at a personal cost of your time and resources, but the end result of such a society is that, in so far as we are able, everyone has the help they need when they need it.

What kinds of actions are contrary to our ideal society? Selfish actions aimed to benefit one person or group over another are one such kind of action. These kinds of actions cause division amongst individuals and society. At the extreme, it can cause civil war. For the same reason and then some, hateful actions aimed to harm and degrade individuals or groups can be considered objectively bad for our moral system.

In short, then, it is objective to base a moral system around bringing people together as a society for mutual survival, happiness, and well-being. Love is an objective "good" in such a system, while selfish and hateful actions are "bad."

[OpenYourEyes]

So given your parameter (survival), how can we know and verify what or which specific set of rules accurately (objectively) ensure survival or that are truly good for mankind to follow?

We could for example say that the Golden Rule is a good rule to follow since people don't want to get hurt or killed so people shouldn't hurt or kill other people.

The Golden Rule is a good example but besides just a few basic rules, like do not kill (although there are exceptions to that), I don't see much that would fit your moral parameter clearly. Cross-culturally, we see that all or most societies share some basic rules but then it diverges from there, not just in content (the specific rules) but also in the application of the rules (when, why, or how to kill, etc.).

So far, what I find inadequate with your view:
- Natural selection, being the foundation of morality, is impersonal (does not care about moral progression and it is mechanistic, therefore good or bad traits can get passed on along to future generations. I would not expect this from an objective moral source that wants man to get along.

- Lacking in moral epistemology. For example, is survival the only moral parameter or guideline for morals? How do you know there aren't others? How can we KNOW or be sure that the specific rules derive from the guidelines are indeed what we should follow?

- Assumes that everything that follows from biology will be objective. If I genetically engineer a human with traits to my liking, and make it to where they kill certain targets and to die trying, then by your logic that would be totally good, objectively even. That human is doing nothing more than following their programming which is all your view amounts to in terms of what you call objectively good.

[Artie]

So far, what I find inadequate with your view:
- Natural selection, being the foundation of morality, is impersonal (does not care about moral progression and it is mechanistic, therefore good or bad traits can get passed on along to future generations. I would not expect this from an objective moral source that wants man to get along.

I don't see anything "inadequate". Evolution and natural selection doesn't care about your expectations.

- Lacking in moral epistemology. For example, is survival the only moral parameter or guideline for morals? How do you know there aren't others?

Do you have any suggestions?

- Assumes that everything that follows from biology will be objective. If I genetically engineer a human with traits to my liking, and make it to where they kill certain targets and to die trying, then by your logic that would be totally good, objectively even. That human is doing nothing more than following their programming which is all your view amounts to in terms of what you call objectively good.

Except it wasn't evolution and natural selection that did the "programming" so your example doesn't apply.

[Bust Nak]

...In short, then, it is objective to base a moral system around bringing people together as a society for mutual survival, happiness, and well-being. Love is an objective "good" in such a system, while selfish and hateful actions are "bad."

How are you bridging the gap between "X is love" and "X is good," i.e. the is-ought gap? Sounds like you are just jumping from love to good as if one implies the other.