Atheistic Foundation of Objective Morality

Post by **The Tanager** » Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:35 pm

So, this would be a question to those who believe that objective morality can be founded upon an atheistic worldview. What is the objective foundation?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:05 pm

The Tanager wrote:
Artie wrote:Social stability is in my own self-interest. Keeping others from experiencing harm is in my own self-interest because it increases the chances of them doing the same to me.
And another person will think that it's not in their self-interest. Why are you right? What if someone can harm another and yet still experience the general benefit of others not being harmful to them?

If in a society with a hundred people everybody help each other the society prospers. If in another society with a hundred people everybody kill each other for fun the society collapses and everybody dies. Evolution and natural selection selects automatically for the first society and their behavior and against the second. We are a species with an evolved self-preservation/survival instinct. For such a species helping behavior increases chances of survival, killing each other for fun decreases them. That is why we say helping people is good/right/moral, killing people for fun is bad/wrong/immoral. It's all grounded in evolution and natural selection, not on the personal subjective opinions of people.

William · Post by **William** » Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:42 pm

[Replying to post 101 by Artie]

It's all grounded in evolution and natural selection, not on the personal subjective opinions of people.

While it is difficult to separate these two positions (for obvious reasons) are you saying here that...
...objective morality is "all grounded in evolution and natural selection"?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:13 pm

William wrote: [Replying to post 101 by Artie]
It's all grounded in evolution and natural selection, not on the personal subjective opinions of people.
While it is difficult to separate these two positions (for obvious reasons) are you saying here that...
...objective morality is "all grounded in evolution and natural selection"?

What is right or wrong is grounded in evolution and natural selection not in the subjective opinions of people. And when the subjective opinions of people don't make something right or wrong what is right or wrong isn't subjective. And when it's not subjective...?

William · Post by **William** » Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:47 pm

[Replying to post 103 by Artie]

I didn't really understand your apparent answer.

Are you perhaps claiming that the subjective opinions of people are not part of the process of evolution and natural selection?

That the process of evolution and natural selection give us an opportunity of understanding of what is right and wrong apart from subjective opinions?

That the process of evolution and natural selection is not subject to personal opinion (subjective interpretation?) and are perhaps easily enough understood through impartial observation where right and wrong can be observed within said process?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:13 pm

William wrote: [Replying to post 103 by Artie]

I didn't really understand your apparent answer.

Are you perhaps claiming that the subjective opinions of people are not part of the process of evolution and natural selection?

Evolution and natural selection evolved people capable of having subjective opinions.

That the process of evolution and natural selection give us an opportunity of understanding of what is right and wrong apart from subjective opinions?

In a way.

That the process of evolution and natural selection is not subject to personal opinion (subjective interpretation?) and are perhaps easily enough understood through impartial observation where right and wrong can be observed within said process?

Also one way to put it.

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:49 am

[Replying to Artie]

What is right or wrong is grounded in evolution and natural selection not in the subjective opinions of people. And when the subjective opinions of people don't make something right or wrong what is right or wrong isn't subjective. And when it's not subjective...?

Sorry if you've explained this above, but just wanted to clarify are you:
a) arguing we ought to determine our views on right and wrong based on evolution and natural selection?

or

b)arguing our views on right and wrong are determined by evolution and we have no choice about it?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:59 am

dakoski wrote:Sorry if you've explained this above, but just wanted to clarify are you:
a) arguing we ought to determine our views on right and wrong based on evolution and natural selection?

No, our views on right and wrong behaviors are grounded in and based on the behaviors evolution and natural selection automatically selected.

dakoski · Post by **dakoski** » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:55 pm

[Replying to Artie]

No, our views on right and wrong behaviors are grounded in and based on the behaviors evolution and natural selection automatically selected.

Ok, I agree with that up to a point - that our intuitions about right and wrong behaviours largely overlap and mainly reflect what is adaptive for human flourishing.

However, I think there is a limit to this approach. There are many examples of behaviours that could be argued to be adaptive in terms of natural selection but many tend to judge to be wrong. For example, Steven Pinker makes an interesting argument about neonaticide being grounded in natural selection therefore would we consider this to be a objectively right behaviour?

Killing a baby is an immoral act, and we often express our outrage at the immoral by calling it a sickness. But normal human motives are not always moral, and neonaticide does not have to be a product of malfunctioning neural circuitry or a dysfunctional upbringing. We can try to understand what would lead a mother to kill her newborn, remembering that to understand is not necessarily to forgive.

Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, both psychologists, argue that a capacity for neonaticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions. Mammals are extreme among animals in the amount of time, energy and food they invest in their young, and humans are extreme among mammals. Parental investment is a limited resource, and mammalian mothers must ''decide'' whether to allot it to their newborn or to their current and future offspring. If a newborn is sickly, or if its survival is not promising, they may cut their losses and favor the healthiest in the litter or try again later on.

Post by **The Tanager** » Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:02 pm

Artie wrote:If in a society with a hundred people everybody help each other the society prospers. If in another society with a hundred people everybody kill each other for fun the society collapses and everybody dies. Evolution and natural selection selects automatically for the first society and their behavior and against the second. We are a species with an evolved self-preservation/survival instinct. For such a species helping behavior increases chances of survival, killing each other for fun decreases them. That is why we say helping people is good/right/moral, killing people for fun is bad/wrong/immoral. It's all grounded in evolution and natural selection, not on the personal subjective opinions of people.

Let's think about a scenario. I can do action A or action B. I have an evolved herd instinct that if I choose to follow it will result in me taking action A. I've got another instinct (say, self-preservation) that has helped my species survive in the past that, if followed, will lead me to perform action B. What action ought I to take?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:33 pm

dakoski wrote: [Replying to Artie]
No, our views on right and wrong behaviors are grounded in and based on the behaviors evolution and natural selection automatically selected.
Ok, I agree with that up to a point - that our intuitions about right and wrong behaviours largely overlap and mainly reflect what is adaptive for human flourishing.

However, I think there is a limit to this approach. There are many examples of behaviours that could be argued to be adaptive in terms of natural selection but many tend to judge to be wrong. For example, Steven Pinker makes an interesting argument about neonaticide being grounded in natural selection therefore would we consider this to be a objectively right behaviour?
Killing a baby is an immoral act, and we often express our outrage at the immoral by calling it a sickness. But normal human motives are not always moral, and neonaticide does not have to be a product of malfunctioning neural circuitry or a dysfunctional upbringing. We can try to understand what would lead a mother to kill her newborn, remembering that to understand is not necessarily to forgive.

Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, both psychologists, argue that a capacity for neonaticide is built into the biological design of our parental emotions. Mammals are extreme among animals in the amount of time, energy and food they invest in their young, and humans are extreme among mammals. Parental investment is a limited resource, and mammalian mothers must ''decide'' whether to allot it to their newborn or to their current and future offspring. If a newborn is sickly, or if its survival is not promising, they may cut their losses and favor the healthiest in the litter or try again later on.

I don't know enough about this to comment. Do you have some links to documentation?