What dictates taboo and what is good?

[Jester]

It came up another topic it might be good to discuss the reasons why we believe the ethics that we believe.
Questions:
Is there any logical grounding for ethics, that some behavior is inherently right or wrong regardless of human opinion?
What is the basic source of ethics? A deity? Evolutionary biology? Social constructs? Some combination of these? Something else?

[Jester]

I could go on about this topic for hours.

Great! Though I must admit that I may not have your endurance.

One can definitely see some evolutionary basis behind morality but when you get down to a society level we sort of hit a dead-end. For instance, the views 50-100 years ago were drastically different to today - that isn't enough time for evolution to have had an effect on the mentality of people.

I've always felt that the concept that there is an evolutionary benefit to morality is very limited. There are points at which this seems to make a great deal of sense to me, but not all. The willingness of an individual to sacrifice himself/herself for the group, for instance, would make him/her less likely to pass on genetic traits.

Why was inter-racial marriage a problem 50 years ago? Why is gay marriage a problem then and now? Why are black people treated equal today but not 100 years ago?

One cannot base this upon scripture as the scripture hasn't changed in that time-span so that can't be a contributing factor.

One could argue, however, that human progress has helped in our understanding of said scripture or whatever other ethical guides. That is to say that we denounced racism in America for at least a century before segregation was ended.
I haven't yet found a secular justification for ethics. That is not to say that non-theists are in any way less ethical than theists. I believe that they are quite ethical, but that they seem to be unable to justify their ethics with any logical proof. Theists can do as much if, and only if, one accepts their religious beliefs as true.
It seems, then, that a god of some sort is required to justify ethics logically.

[Angel]

It came up another topic it might be good to discuss the reasons why we believe the ethics that we believe.
Questions:
Is there any logical grounding for ethics, that some behavior is inherently right or wrong regardless of human opinion?
What is the basic source of ethics? A deity? Evolutionary biology? Social constructs? Some combination of these? Something else?

As far as having a logical or objective basis for morality, that could not come about through evolutionary biology. Evolution can at most perhaps leave us with morals but it wouldn't leave us with being able to objectively know which ones to follow other than perhaps the ones that directly threaten survival. But then when you throw in suicide, justified killing, and other scenarios that line can get blurred. Just the simple fact that we have a diversity in views when it comes to morality shows that we're not hard wired by nature to objectively know right from wrong but rather we interpret, develop, or modify our standards on the basis of our experiences. Social constructs can't account for an objective basis of morals since they're man-made or culture made and that's subjective. A deity may be one possibility to where objective morals would exists but then we're still left with the problem of not being able to logically or objectively know them.

[Cathar1950]

My problem with the traditional theist position is that morality becomes arbitrary.
Ignoring the problems with the divine command theory for morality how does God determine what is good or evil?
If God says they are good because they d something for us r God then we are looking for something almost outside of God that God judges and uses as a standard. If this is true then God isn’t really needed in order to have an objective morality as it is something even God can recognize.
At best an objective morality would be one we agree upon.
A morality that is just God’s morality is no morality at all, it would be either obedience or disobedience and arbitrary as it would be dependent upon the God and the views or concepts of God.
But evolution makes perfect sense.

[Jester]

My problem with the traditional theist position is that morality becomes arbitrary.
Ignoring the problems with the divine command theory for morality how does God determine what is good or evil?
If God says they are good because they d something for us r God then we are looking for something almost outside of God that God judges and uses as a standard. If this is true then God isn’t really needed in order to have an objective morality as it is something even God can recognize.
At best an objective morality would be one we agree upon.
A morality that is just God’s morality is no morality at all, it would be either obedience or disobedience and arbitrary as it would be dependent upon the God and the views or concepts of God.

The reason why God's existence, if true, would establish an objective ethic is that it would establish a meaning in life. Essentially, the universe, as well as each individual person, would have been created for a reason, and a particular purpose in life would have been woven into reality itself. In the case of the Christian God, I would say that that purpose is love.
Regardless of what purpose it may be, however, ethics would be those principals which bring us closer to finding our ultimate purpose in life, and evils would be those attitudes/actions that move us in the opposite direction.

But evolution makes perfect sense.

I think I need some elaboration on this. I'm going to give a general response to the issue of evolution, but know that not all of it will apply to your position. Feel free only to respond to those points which do apply.
I personally don't see at all that evolution explains even the formation of many of our ethics, let alone establishes them as objective.
To give an example, if evolution is our source of ethics, what was wrong with euthanasia - or even the slaughter of persons with genetic diseases?
If you mean to say, however, that evolution is not our ethical guide, but simply the process which caused our sense of ethics, I still have some issues. I'd recycle the example of those willing to die to save others. This makes those who have such a motivation less likely to reproduce. Beyond that, it does not explain the swiftness of change in ethical standards between cultures and individuals.
Much more importantly, however, I would say that this does not offer any reason to support ethics in any objective sense. While it probably doesn't refute your point, it is worth mention that the concept that ethics are the result of evolutionary change contradicts any ethical cry, such as the civil disobedience movement of Gandhi.

[Jester]

As far as having a logical or objective basis for morality, that could not come about through evolutionary biology. Evolution can at most perhaps leave us with morals but it wouldn't leave us with being able to objectively know which ones to follow other than perhaps the ones that directly threaten survival. But then when you throw in suicide, justified killing, and other scenarios that line can get blurred. Just the simple fact that we have a diversity in views when it comes to morality shows that we're not hard wired by nature to objectively know right from wrong but rather we interpret, develop, or modify our standards on the basis of our experiences. Social constructs can't account for an objective basis of morals since they're man-made or culture made and that's subjective. A deity may be one possibility to where objective morals would exists but then we're still left with the problem of not being able to logically or objectively know them.

I essentially agree with all of this. My only disagreement would be that we might be able know the objective ethics established by a deity. There are many religions that, if true, would tell us something of this.

[Gonzo]

I've always felt that the concept that there is an evolutionary benefit to morality is very limited. There are points at which this seems to make a great deal of sense to me, but not all. The willingness of an individual to sacrifice himself/herself for the group, for instance, would make him/her less likely to pass on genetic traits.

Well many organisms have been known to exhibit altruistic behavior. Some leave themselves open to predators by giving alarm calls, and others help animals of other species, which definitely doesn't help pass on genetic traits. examples

Speculation and knowledge I've acquired from my Biology professor:

Self-sacrifice could help pass on genetic traits when one is protecting their kin.
As for self-sacrifice regarding non-relatives, it could be viewed as allowing for the continued existence of the race (allowing for the passage of another of the species genetic material), or at least benefiting the race in some way.


And as for what you said about love, why do you think that it is anything more than chemical interactions in our brain? (sorry if I misinterpreted).

[Cathar1950]

I've always felt that the concept that there is an evolutionary benefit to morality is very limited. There are points at which this seems to make a great deal of sense to me, but not all. The willingness of an individual to sacrifice himself/herself for the group, for instance, would make him/her less likely to pass on genetic traits.

This seems so obvious. The individual giving their life for the group saves the group and even their possible children.
It is the group or species that endures as the individual dies.
Even meanings, language, religion and culture are all passed on and they change over time, sometime by accident which shapes futures.
People live with the meanings the create and are given with not recognition of God.
Even your God concepts has a history or evolution.

[Jester]

Well many organisms have been known to exhibit altruistic behavior. Some leave themselves open to predators by giving alarm calls, and others help animals of other species, which definitely doesn't help pass on genetic traits.

I agree, and while many of these can be explained in terms of natural selection, I don't believe that all can. This leads me to suspect that evolution is not the only factor at work here.

Self-sacrifice could help pass on genetic traits when one is protecting their kin.
As for self-sacrifice regarding non-relatives, it could be viewed as allowing for the continued existence of the race (allowing for the passage of another of the species genetic material), or at least benefiting the race in some way.

I agree, but this is not a matter of natural selection. If one is protecting the entire race, then such traits will not be naturally selected, because they are more likely to protect those members of the population that do not possess them than those that do.

And as for what you said about love, why do you think that it is anything more than chemical interactions in our brain? (sorry if I misinterpreted).

I said that it was more than this if the Christian God is shown to exist. Many people have asserted that love, and all other human conditions are simply a matter of brain-chemistry. If that happens to be your position, you are allowed it, but it would work directly against the idea that we should regard ethics as anything more than a chemical reaction - and give them no more weight than love.

[Jester]

This seems so obvious. The individual giving their life for the group saves the group and even their possible children.
It is the group or species that endures as the individual dies.

Evolution does not work via entire populations, however. They occur in individuals, and those individuals with beneficial mutations are more likely to survive than others within the population.
To put it another way, entire populations do not evolve a trait before it becomes useful to the outside world. Therefore, the first organisms in a given population to behave sacrificially will not be as likely to pass their genes onto larger parts of the population than those who do not, specifically because it will be those who do not sacrifice themselves which will survive.

Even meanings, language, religion and culture are all passed on and they change over time, sometime by accident which shapes futures.

This is not a case of evolutionary biology. If people see people sacrificing themselves for a belief, and become more likely to believe it afterward, then it is because they are impressed by the sacrifice, and therefore already believe that sacrificial behavior is good.

People live with the meanings the create and are given with not recognition of God.
Even your God concepts has a history or evolution.

This is a valid assertion, but requires support.
Beyond that, I fail to see why the fact that beliefs change somewhat over time is evidence against them. They are, quite specifically, under a process of constant review. This reasoning seems similar to "disproving" science by pointing out that modern scientific conclusions are different to those Newton asserted.

Regardless of the points above, this seems to be an argument about the origin of the sense of ethics in human kind, and seems to make no attempt at justifying ethics. That is to say that one point, which I consider to be very important, is neglected. I believe that there are many who attempt to live ethical lives, as if ethics had objective weight, even without any reason to believe that this is the case. With full acknowledgment that such people are generally very ethical and wonderful people, this seems to me to be an inherent contradiction. If we are going to assert that there is no objective weight in ethics, why follow any that don't happen to suit your desires?