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]

Culture, nurture, learning. These are separate factors from biology that shape our behavior.

And what has shaped our "culture, nurture, learning" in the first place? Our biological needs.

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.

There's a biological reason for having days when we don't work. It relieves pressure and stress and work related anxieties and gives us needed rest which increases our chances of survival.

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.

Guide us so we achieve what? Better chances of survival and well being and reproduction of course.

[OpenYourEyes]

Culture, nurture, learning. These are separate factors from biology that shape our behavior.

And what has shaped our "culture, nurture, learning" in the first place? Our biological needs.

Like I said earlier, we can both agree that our bodies originated with biological processes, but from that point, biology only plays a role and not the sole role in shaping our behavior. The concept of time for instance did not originate out of a biological need. It originated from reason and observation of our environment and Universe as a whole. People's experiences with God do not originate out of a biological need, but rather out of an observation of something supernatural.

Hmm, following down this road I can anticipate that you'd say that everything that man does is derived from a biological need, including every moral act that they do. But then that would also mean that all of the morals that man can think of would be objective since your definition of objective morality was that it was based on a biological necessity and/or that it came from biology. If so, you've just defeated your point because at this point there is no distinct moral system, it's basically any moral rule that man can think of is objective - ie based on a biological need/origin.

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.

There's a biological reason for having days when we don't work. It relieves pressure and stress and work related anxieties and gives us needed rest which increases our chances of survival.

Okay, a simple fix to this would be just to come up with another subjective based rule that is not based on survival. I'll give you two even... Women should not be priests. Homosexuals should have not sex. Try interpreting those as being a biological need or as being biologically advantageous. Depending on your explanation, I might even ask for a scientific and replicated study because there are just too many Darwinian/evolutionary perspectives out there in which I don't find studies for. People just presume that Darwin's theory can be expanded to any matter of life, like objective morals, just because it's so successful in some areas. I found that to be the case after being presented with evolutionary explanations for homosexuality, just to find out that there were different/conflicting explanations and some of them were not even empirically tested nor replicated.

[Artie]

People's experiences with God do not originate out of a biological need, but rather out of an observation of something supernatural.

Here is an interesting article citing different theories about the origins of religion. http://www.livescience.com/52364-origin ... liefs.html

Hmm, following down this road I can anticipate that you'd say that everything that man does is derived from a biological need, including every moral act that they do. But then that would also mean that all of the morals that man can think of would be objective since your definition of objective morality was that it was based on a biological necessity and/or that it came from biology. If so, you've just defeated your point because at this point there is no distinct moral system, it's basically any moral rule that man can think of is objective - ie based on a biological need/origin.

Examples?

Okay, a simple fix to this would be just to come up with another subjective based rule that is not based on survival. I'll give you two even... Women should not be priests.

There are many examples of priestesses and female priests. Please quote somebody who says women should not be priests and give us his/her reasons for saying that.

Homosexuals should have not sex.

Who came up with this rule and why?

[wiploc]

.

Homosexuals should have not sex.

Who came up with this rule and why?

Certainly it wasn't a benevolent god.