Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[Jackalope]

Well I disagree that objective morality is such that it is right irrespective of all opinions.

That is the very definition of objectivity in this context. To be objective, it must exist independent of any opinion.

[Mystic]

I am going to watch the Hockey Game now and then watch Basketball.

I'll talk to you tomorrow.

[The Grand Nudger]

You might have to focus a little bit more than watching pro sports would allow, and it might take you a little longer than a day...to prepare a solid argument for objective morality.

Just throwing that out there.

[Tempus]

Some people believe evolution created objective morality. You can ask:

"Did evolution produce what is moral because it is moral or did is it moral because evolution declare it so/produced it".

I don't. I don't believe in objective morality. Evolution can't "declare it so" - it's a process that doesn't have intentions.

Yet morality as we all perceive it as authority to the highest degree, there is no limit to the the authority it has.

Uh, no. You're asserting something is true, but I don't see any reason to believe you.

You see, God can't decide what morality is either, it's rather has to be either whom he is, or part of whom he is.

That just leads to another split in the horn of the dilemma (well now it's a trilemma). If morality is part of god's nature (i.e. "part of whom he is"), then that leaves two choices:

1. God can control his nature.
   
2. God cannot control his nature.
   

If it's option #1 we get the familiar result of god's nature (and thus morality) being subject to his whims. If option #2 is correct he's not omnipotent. Also, his nature must be dictated by something outside of him since he's not in control of it. The solution collapses back into the same dilemma.

[Zen Badger]

You might have to focus a little bit more than watching pro sports would allow, and it might take you a little longer than a day...to prepare a solid argument for objective morality.

Just throwing that out there.

Since objective morality is a fiction, I'm guessing it will take much longer than a day.

[Angrboda]

Well, first off, evolution doesn't create anything, as it is not an agent. Evolution is a process, a process which, in our carbon based life forms we associate with certain more specific processes.

Evolution, in animals, can result in the probability of certain behaviors being more common than chance. This is just a stochastic process that, by nature of the behavior, modifies processes such that the creation of more animals displaying that behavior is more probable than not. A very basic behavior is sex. Any sexually dimorphic animal that doesn't engage in sexual behaviors will not create more of its kind, and that form will disappear. A form that is especially good at securing and mating with others will create more like itself that are good at reproduction, edging out less successful reproducers. Some behaviors are hard to analyze, like the wearing of funny hats. To quote Dan Barker, "morality is a function that a healthy brain performs." For reasons analogous to sex, animals that engage in moral behaviors which lead to their success in the species will result in more specimens displaying that behavior. Apparently, for our species, the behaviors we associate as moral behaviors, from thinking about moral cases to believing in the illusion that morality is objective, lead to more humans displaying same or similar moral behaviors. Note that this is likely species centric, and a dolphin, even if not cognizing its behaviors as moral, has behaviors, likely emotion based, which serve the same instrumental purpose in Dolphins.

Your notion that there is such a thing as morality independent of the open-ended self-modifying process that is evolution is an interesting notion, but before you introduce it as a key premise in your argument, you might actually demonstrate that it in fact exists.

[genkaus]

I think objective (not universal) morality does exist, but that we'll never to know what the objective answer is to most moral questions for sure. Some are fairly obvious: as a general rule in today's circumstances, it is immoral to rape someone.

I think objective (not universal) morality doesn't exist - yet. But I also believe that we are getting there slowly and figuring out its basics, specially regarding the concepts such as freedom, rape or murder.

[Mystic]

If you don't believe in objective morality, then subjective morality is just opinion that is not really based on any reason.

You can't really say something is likely to be wrong or right, without belief that there is objective morality either.

Now ofcourse if someone is going to deny he knows "Torturing a child for fun" is wrong in a sure definite manner, then that won't prove it to him.

But I believe if a person is honest to themselves, they will realize they know it's wrong in a definite manner. Not only that, but will prohibit themselves from it in a strong manner.

The opinion of morality doesn't also seem to be like opinion of what food tastes best so I don't see the analogy. When it comes to opinions of what food tastes best, we say there is no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of different taste.

The same is not true of morality. For example, although people differ on the rule of killing apostates, people will not state, neither opinion is right or wrong, it depends on what you like.

Yes having millions of people agree on an opinion will not prove it, but my intention here is for people to reflect on their knowledge of morality.

Someone mentioned that morality doesn't have highest degree of authority to the extent it has no limit, and I want to ask, what is the limit on the "should" command of not torturing a child for fun?

And if you can know this is wrong, does it occur to you, that sincerely listening to the same thing that shows that is wrong, will also show many others thing to be wrong or right?

And if many things can be shown, why would any moral question be excluded from possible knowledge of it.

As for God's nature, I don't believe he chose it, he just rather chose to stay on that nature, but if changed from that nature, then still morality would have been eternal and not chosen and he would be leaving the state of ultimate greatness and ultimate morality.

Thanks everyone for their input. We're having an interesting conversation.

[The Grand Nudger]

An opinion being subjective does not preclude that opinion from being reasoned.

I can say that it is likely that between you and I such an act would be considered wrong without invoking whether or not the act is objectively wrong, which is precisely what I did, and this is the third time I've had to explain that to you. I'm going to assume that you know better by now and are simply hell-bent on straw manning my statements.

Someone who is is honest probably avoids saying he "knows" something when he doesn't. Particularly if that something never rises above the level of a feeling or conviction (no matter how deeply held).

I can be honest with you about my feelings or convictions (which I have been) and determine that to me, torturing a child is wrong, whilst simultaneously being honest about my reasons (or lack thereof) for having such a conviction.

It doesn't? Then why are there so many different moralities and how am I to decide which is the "true" morality if nothing other than your own convictions (read: tastes) are being invoked? Your argument for morality is precisely equivalent to an argument for vanilla ice-cream at this point.

You mean people wont admit to their superstitions being nothing more than their own bullshit spread over the fabric of the cosmos...surprise surprise. You know there are some people who are militantly in love with chocolate who would tell you vanilla loving freaks that you are wrong.

Your statement here assumes that anyone has any knowledge of morality to begin with. Before you blather on about your knowledge you should be certain that you have any. You seem to have knowledge about your own convictions. You've done the same with god here, first assuming that it exists so you could blather on about your knowledge of it without demonstrating that you have any in the first place.

[Mystic]

When it comes to tastes of foods, reasonable people will realize, that people have different tastes, and it isn't about a right answer or wrong answer. I think when people say vanilla people are wrong or anything like that, they aren't be serious about it, they are just expressing what they like more. Not every statement is to be taken literally. Or if they are being literal, they are forgetful of the fact people have different tastes, or are illogical.

Anyways, what do you feel is the reasons you feel it is wrong? Do you feel it's just because of emotions created by evolution, etc., what is the basis.? And why do you feel like you don't know for sure it's wrong in an absolute manner?

I'm not trying to make a straw man, from what I understand, subjective morality just comes down to being a delusion. I'm not stating this is what you are stating.

---

Well I disagree that objective morality is such that it is right irrespective of all opinions.

That is the very definition of objectivity in this context. To be objective, it must exist independent of any opinion.

I think to be objective, it must be based on an eternal absolute right opinion. This is one reason why I feel, if objective morality exists, then God exists for sure.

I have to disagree - because in a universe without any opinions, no conscious beings, then objective morality cannot exist.