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 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.

If natural selection is not about OUR (human) moral progress then it is indifferent to "right" and "wrong" and therefore can not serve as a moral basis. Does it make sense to you to think of 'natural selection' as a source of objective morals, which would entail moral 'oughtness' (meaning morals should be followed otherwise what's the point of morals?) but then it doesn't care about OUR progress? That takes away from oughtness and therefore morals, overall. Seeing that natural selection works for any organism, including those that can make us extinct, like viruses, then I'd agree, we have no special place. If we go extinct, natural selection would still continue on with its mechanistic process. I also think going beyond just 'natural selection' the existence of natural evil kinda proves my point. Why are we supposed to do good, objectively speaking, when so many things in nature can compromise our existence (asteroid collisions, hurricanes, viruses, etc)?

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?

-
Just as I acknowledged before, there are at best necessary morals that we can derive from your system of ethics, like do not kill, steal, etc but then there are these not so clear morals that cultures tend to disagree on from there and most importantly to your point, that do not impact our survival instinct or survival in general. For instance, how we've gone thousands of years suppressing homosexuals and women. Or how we've gone thousands of years mandating monogamy or sex within marriage, etc when we could just as easily allow polygamy, gay marriage, etc. How can you make a case for one or the other OBJECTIVELY speaking, using just natural selection? Can's we use natural selection to make a case for why we shouldn't help the poor and the weak?

So far overall, I see no logical or consistent basis, if any basis at all, for deciding which evolved traits (survival instinct included) are good and bad in a moral sense, and this assumes that we can call your view a morality to begin with. Seems like just a pick-and-choose of objective morals starting with your fundamental moral assumption that HUMANS should survive as opposed to any other species or organism.

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.

Interestingly, if my scenario played out via natural selection then it would be morally good, right?

[Artie]

If natural selection is not about OUR (human's) moral progress then it is indifferent to "right" and "wrong" and therefore can not serve as a moral basis.

The survival instinct and other evolved instincts like the instinct to procreate serve as the basis of our morality simply because they are the reason we say some things are right and some things are wrong.

Just as I acknowledged before, there are at best necessary morals that we can derive from your system of ethics, like do not kill, steal, etc but then there are these not so clear morals that cultures tend to disagree on from there and most importantly to your point, that do not impact our survival instinct or survival in general. For instance, how we've gone thousands of years suppressing homosexuals and women. Or how we've gone thousands of years mandating monogamy or sex within marriage, etc when we could just as easily allow polygamy, gay marriage, etc. How can you make a case for one or the other OBJECTIVELY speaking, using just natural selection? Can's we use natural selection to make a case for why we shouldn't help the poor and the weak?

I don't follow. Obviously for a social species helping the poor and the weak has an evolutionary advantage since tomorrow they might help us in return. Just like vampire bats give food to starving roost mates because of the survival advantage this behavior gives to the species. Reciprocal altruism.

So far overall, I see no logical or consistent basis, if any basis at all, for deciding which evolved traits (survival instinct included) are good and bad in a moral sense, and this assumes that we can call your view a morality to begin with. Seems like just a pick-and-choose of objective morals starting with your fundamental moral assumption that HUMANS should survive as opposed to any other species or organism.

LOL When sharks and crocodiles eat humans to survive they are doing what is right for them to do because it's in their evolved nature. Like with humans.

Interestingly, if my scenario played out via natural selection then it would be morally good, right?

It would be in our nature and part of what makes us human.

[OpenYourEyes]

If natural selection is not about OUR (human's) moral progress then it is indifferent to "right" and "wrong" and therefore can not serve as a moral basis.

The survival instinct and other evolved instincts like the instinct to procreate serve as the basis of our morality simply because they are the reason we say some things are right and some things are wrong.

I don't see logically how instincts equate to or lead to an objective good and evil. The survival and reproductive instinct explain why we act in certain ways but that doesn't point to morality any more than any other organisms acting in certain ways to survive. Your view is just as compatible with an amoral world, one with no free-will or real moral oughtness.

[OpenYourEyes]

If natural selection is not about OUR (human's) moral progress then it is indifferent to "right" and "wrong" and therefore can not serve as a moral basis.

The survival instinct and other evolved instincts like the instinct to procreate serve as the basis of our morality simply because they are the reason we say some things are right and some things are wrong.

Morals are probably based on both biology and culture as is the case for many human traits. If we had an objective morality instilled in us from biology, then cross-culturally our moral systems would be consistent rather than conflicting, but yet in many cases we have the latter.

Now we're at a point where we can use reason to know what factors drives us, and weed out the bad ones, determine good morals. Hek, we can even control or manipulate natural selection via artificial selection, technology, etc. So even if your point were valid, it will soon lose less and less impact.

Just as I acknowledged before, there are at best necessary morals that we can derive from your system of ethics, like do not kill, steal, etc but then there are these not so clear morals that cultures tend to disagree on from there and most importantly to your point, that do not impact our survival instinct or survival in general. For instance, how we've gone thousands of years suppressing homosexuals and women. Or how we've gone thousands of years mandating monogamy or sex within marriage, etc when we could just as easily allow polygamy, gay marriage, etc. How can you make a case for one or the other OBJECTIVELY speaking, using just natural selection? Can's we use natural selection to make a case for why we shouldn't help the poor and the weak?

I don't follow. Obviously for a social species helping the poor and the weak has an evolutionary advantage since tomorrow they might help us in return. Just like vampire bats give food to starving roost mates because of the survival advantage this behavior gives to the species. Reciprocal altruism.

They "might" or they "might" not. I can think of scenarios where they won't so without objective means for knowing which is which, your system is pretty much inadequate in such cases.

And "advantageous" can just mean successfully passed on to the next generation. It doesn't necessarily have to mean something that it is indeed good or beneficial for mankind, any more than the natural selection of viruses. Clearly, the Universe outside of the world of organisms doesn't do all that's advantageous for us, which is one reason I question your naturalistic notion of there being an objective morality. The Universe has many dangers that can make us go extinct, like an asteroid strike. Seems like a problem of natural evil to me and defeats the purpose of "objective" morality and moral 'obligation' or 'oughtness'.

So far overall, I see no logical or consistent basis, if any basis at all, for deciding which evolved traits (survival instinct included) are good and bad in a moral sense, and this assumes that we can call your view a morality to begin with. Seems like just a pick-and-choose of objective morals starting with your fundamental moral assumption that HUMANS should survive as opposed to any other species or organism.

LOL When sharks and crocodiles eat humans to survive they are doing what is right for them to do because it's in their evolved nature. Like with humans.

Interestingly, if my scenario played out via natural selection then it would be morally good, right?

It would be in our nature and part of what makes us human.

This sounds circular. Your argument sounds like this:
Nature is good (in an objective moral sense) because of nature.

[Artie]

Morals are probably based on both biology and culture

What do you think different cultures base their morality on in the first place?

as is the case for many human traits. If we had an objective morality instilled in us from biology, then cross-culturally our moral systems would be consistent rather than conflicting, but yet in many cases we have the latter.

Examples?

I don't follow. Obviously for a social species helping the poor and the weak has an evolutionary advantage since tomorrow they might help us in return. Just like vampire bats give food to starving roost mates because of the survival advantage this behavior gives to the species. Reciprocal altruism.

They "might" or they "might" not.

So what? Doesn't matter since even though sometimes we might not get help in return helping is generally statistically beneficial behavior anyway.

Clearly, the Universe outside of the world of organisms doesn't do all that's advantageous for us, which is one reason I question your naturalistic notion of there being an objective morality, while we can all be taken out anytime with an asteroid strike. Seems like a problem of natural evil to me and defeats the purpose of "objective" morality.

Makes no sense.

This sounds circular. Your argument sounds like this:
Nature is good (in an objective moral sense) because of nature.

The reason we say survival is good is because that is how we evolved. It's our nature.

[OpenYourEyes]

Morals are probably based on both biology and culture

What do you think different cultures base their morality on in the first place?

as is the case for many human traits. If we had an objective morality instilled in us from biology, then cross-culturally our moral systems would be consistent rather than conflicting, but yet in many cases we have the latter.

Examples?

Examples of different moral standards between cultures? How about age of consent for sex, the role of women, homosexuality, disciplining children, monogamy, etc, etc. Another point also was that not all moral standards that you might find reprehensible actually impact survival, like polygamy, child brides, corporal punishment for children, etc. Most of these things can be practiced in flourishing societies as they have been in the past but I presume you still agree that these acts are wrong despite societies who practice them being able to flourish. Seems that we go by more than just natural selection in this case.

Helping the poor might or might not be beneficial...

So what? Doesn't matter since even though sometimes we might not get help in return helping is generally statistically beneficial behavior anyway.

If natural selection weeding them out because they weren't fit to survive in their environment, then I'd want the statistics on that, if possible, just to compare. The point is I don't see that you have to help them because people can choose not to do so and still flourish.

Clearly, the Universe outside of the world of organisms doesn't do all that's advantageous for us, which is one reason I question your naturalistic notion of there being an objective morality, while we can all be taken out anytime with an asteroid strike. Seems like a problem of natural evil to me and defeats the purpose of "objective" morality.

Makes no sense.

You and I agree, that we have morals. But do you also agree that we "ought" to follow those morals, etc? If so, how do you square the claim that there's an objectively standard that we "ought" to follow while living in a world with no free-will and a Universe that doesn't care about our fate? Life permitting planets only exist in the Universe through astronomical odds. If creatures endowed with reason, knew that they were going to become extinct, I doubt many would care to follow much of their morality, because what would be the point?

This sounds circular. Your argument sounds like this:
Nature is good (in an objective moral sense) because of nature.

The reason we say survival is good is because that is how we evolved. It's our nature.

I know that you'll also bring up that morality originated via natural selection, but the thing is without the non-life environment around us we wouldn't have evolution and life. If morals were meant to be objective, as opposed to just being in an amoral world where we subjectively (or socially construct) attribute moral values to our acts, then all levels would be conducive to life. Like I said earlier, it doesn't make sense that life wants us to get along while also not caring if an asteroid wipes us out. When philosophers talk about morality, they tend to talk about it not only in terms of just rules but also in terms of "oughtness", existentialism, etc. Without these factors, morality would be pointless and all we'd have are just acts or subjective morals, at best.

[Artie]

When philosophers talk about morality, they tend to talk about it not only in terms of just rules but also in terms of "oughtness", existentialism, etc. Without these factors, morality would be pointless and all we'd have are just acts or subjective morals, at best.

It seems we are just going around in circles. Try reading this:
http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/index.html

[OpenYourEyes]

When philosophers talk about morality, they tend to talk about it not only in terms of just rules but also in terms of "oughtness", existentialism, etc. Without these factors, morality would be pointless and all we'd have are just acts or subjective morals, at best.

It seems we are just going around in circles. Try reading this:
http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/index.html

First off, much of the evolving in the link you posted could be attributed to artificial selection in a sense, which in some cases is based on religion, popular vote, and these different sides trying to impose their morality on society and future generations. That kinda goes against your point since you only acknowledge natural (not artificial) selection as being the basis of morality. As soon as you bring in science into the picture, you are employing reason and artificial selection in terms of selecting which traits are the best of the best.

Secondly, morality is a product of both biology and society. I've agreed to that although the article leaves out the cultural influence part which is a bit suspect seeing the trend that a lot of traits are found to be a product of both nature and nurture, take gender roles, for instance.

It is the puzzle of how one logically reconciles the coexistence of first principles of ethics and the obvious cultural and moral relativism that exists all over the world. The answer is that species and subsets within species survive and adapt better if there is are diverse ethical systems. Thus, one would not expect only one moral system to prevail in the world.

Is the above quote from your source an interpretation or an empirically verified fact? Do you have any scientifically replicated studies that can rule out other explanations, like artificial selection, reason, etc?

Please feel free to respond to my previous post as well, like about where does free-will or a lack thereof fit in your view, the problem of natural evil, reason, culture, and all of my other points.

[Artie]

First off, much of the evolving in the link you posted could be attributed to artificial selection in a sense, which in some cases is based on religion, popular vote, and these different sides trying to impose their morality on society and future generations.

What do you think their morality is ultimately based on?

Secondly, morality is a product of both biology and society.

Society is a product of evolution and natural selection since organisms living in societies have a greater chance of survival.

It is the puzzle of how one logically reconciles the coexistence of first principles of ethics and the obvious cultural and moral relativism that exists all over the world. The answer is that species and subsets within species survive and adapt better if there is are diverse ethical systems. Thus, one would not expect only one moral system to prevail in the world.

Is the above quote from your source an interpretation or an empirically verified fact? Do you have any scientifically replicated studies that can rule out other explanations, like artificial selection, reason, etc?

What do you mean "rule out"? What do you think what we artificially select and the way we reason is ultimately based on?

Please feel free to respond to my previous post as well, like about where does free-will or a lack thereof fit in your view, the problem of natural evil, reason, culture, and all of my other points.

Too many different points articulated in such a way that it's hard to understand exactly what you mean. Try focusing on one point.

[OpenYourEyes]

First off, much of the evolving in the link you posted could be attributed to artificial selection in a sense, which in some cases is based on religion, popular vote, and these different sides trying to impose their morality on society and future generations.

What do you think their morality is ultimately based on?

Culture, nurture, learning. These are separate factors from biology that shape our behavior. While it is true that our brains originated with biology, but that doesn't mean that we can't use our biology to make non-biologically based things, or to think and behave outside of our instincts or to even manipulate evolution, or come up with subjective morals that don't have much of anything to do with our survival, like if I make up a rule to not work on Sundays.

Secondly, morality is a product of both biology and society.

Society is a product of evolution and natural selection since organisms living in societies have a greater chance of survival.

It is the puzzle of how one logically reconciles the coexistence of first principles of ethics and the obvious cultural and moral relativism that exists all over the world. The answer is that species and subsets within species survive and adapt better if there is are diverse ethical systems. Thus, one would not expect only one moral system to prevail in the world.

Is the above quote from your source an interpretation or an empirically verified fact? Do you have any scientifically replicated studies that can rule out other explanations, like artificial selection, reason, etc?

What do you mean "rule out"? What do you think what we artificially select and the way we reason is ultimately based on?

My response earlier in this post applies here as well. Just because a moral sense originated with natural selection doesn't mean that we can't diverge from it or build on it or turn it into something new. Your view is really overly restrictive which is why I find it inadequate to be a moral system that can guide us throughout the many complexities of life.

Therefore, asking for a scientific study that has been successfully replicated is a sensible request.

Please feel free to respond to my previous post as well, like about where does free-will or a lack thereof fit in your view, the problem of natural evil, reason, culture, and all of my other points.

Too many different points articulated in such a way that it's hard to understand exactly what you mean. Try focusing on one point.

Covering different topics is just the natural flow of the conversation.