My views on objective morality

[robvalue]

So for all practical purposes, morality is individual and subjective. Whether or not there is a "best standard" out there is irrelevant since no one knows what it is, nor do they have any way to know when they are getting close. It's therefor useless.

Like the afterlife, it's a nice idea that keeps theists happy I think, by assuring them everything's going to be alright. It never has to be demonstrated to be true, or even to make sense.

(Of course, I have multiple objections to the coherence of a "best standard" as I've droned on about before.)

[Mr.wizard]

My problem with the idea of an objective morality being "out there", is how would we know if we found it? What exactly are we looking for?

[Nuda900]

My problem with the idea of an objective morality being "out there", is how would we know if we found it? What exactly are we looking for?

Well, you would need consciousness, able to know others are conscious, a bit of empathy and rationality. And, the most important part: to be able to interpret to bible to fit accordingly. --> objective morality in a nutshell.

[bennyboy]

Not to mention that DNA's expression is greatly affected by the environment.

In the context of behavior, that too imposes some subjectivity on the process.

I don't think that's quite right.  If the DNA is interacting with the environment, and the conscious agency doesn't have control of this interaction, it's still objective.

[bennyboy]

My problem with the idea of an objective morality being "out there", is how would we know if we found it? What exactly are we looking for?

It may be unknowable.  There's problem an objective answer to "why does the universe exist?"  But we, for sure, don't know it with any confidence. Given all the possible statistical interactions between all current and future humans, and all current and future aspects of the environment, there is probably an ideal behavioral code which would lead to an ideal outcome for humanity.  But that's, obviously, an unknown function.

This is part of the human condition: that given any circumstance, we can't know the details so we hedge our bets by playing odds-maker.  But this is no more true for morality than for economics, or for weather, or for many other highly complex systems.

With regard to God, one could almost DEFINE God in terms of those hidden objective truths: God is that (whatever it is) that caused the universe.  The will of God is that moral system (whatever it is) that we can say might hypothetically give us our ideal outcome as a species.

[abaris]

Morality is neither entirely subjective, nor is it objective. The society we live in shapes the basics. Not to kill is at it's most basic and more or less has always been around, all around the world. With good reason, since it's an inhibitor to protect the species.

Pretty much everything else is up for change and changed within different societies at different times. All in all, morality is nothing else than a code of conduct to avoid too much friction within a certain society.

[robvalue]

That's a good point. We are often confronted with a theist making a false dichotomy: universal, agreed, exact morality or else random, arbitrary total chaos.

Of course, people don't develop their morality randomly. For the vast majority of people, they naturally work together and care about each other, even if that only applies to a small group around them (tribalism). Nor do people ignore each other's morality, their environment and limitations and just pick stuff out of the air. It's a ridiculous idea which just plain ignores reality.

All the theist is really doing is showing their ignorance, and being amazed by the fact that people do care about each other when they feel there's "no reason to"; positing magic as the explanation.

[LadyForCamus]

My problem with the idea of an objective morality being "out there", is how would we know if we found it? What exactly are we looking for?

Yes, exactly. It's not like someone is going to ring a bell for mankind and congratulate us with a shiny blue ribbon when we get it right because, ya know...God doesn't DO that. Because...ya know...it'd be too easy. Or something. I believe that's how that particular apologetic goes?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Hmm...okay, I see your point.  So, we could consider each individual's genetically expressed tendencies as objective for that specific person?  

I'm not sure I'd call individual differences morality.  So while we each have our individual mores, I'd say that morality is more about cultural or species norms.

Good point, LFC!

Benny, what do you think is the underlying basis for a cultural norm, other than the genes of its individuals and the geographic factors which influence them all?

"Species norm"? Again, it's just the consensus of individuals, because natural selection works by changing the characteristics of individuals from generation to generation. When new individuals have the characteristics of rabbits, and generally mate only with similar individuals, then you have a new species. Speciation is driven by the genes of individuals, not by any kind of species standard.

There are certain behaviors that are clearly mediated by instinct and for the most part are uniform across culture and time.  A mother not taking care of her baby, for example, would be seen as immoral in probably every culture-- or it would be a short-lived culture, indeed.  Even though some mothers in fact do not take care of babies, or some cultures have cases in which particular babies are discarded cruelly, I'd say that child-rearing rules might be said to represent an objective morality.

In any slow-reproducing species, there will be instincts developed in mothers to care for their young - no need for rules on this, despite the fact that they exist in societies which are motivated to protect children. It's called a survival necessity, not a "morality", nor is it objective (some mothers care more about how they'll score their next heroin shot). Species which can dump massive quantities of eggs on the bottom of a stream (such as fish) ensure a high likelihood that a few will survive to hatch, and that some will become mature individuals, therefore they can and do abandon the eggs and go on taking care of #1.

[The Inquisition]

@CL

It seems to me that we/you need to start with a very basic question: what would we expect to find in terms of human and animal behavior and the consequences for that behavior if morality is objective and if it's subjective.  

Objective  truths are quantifiable and have conseqences.  We tend to deduce the existence of objective  laws by their conseqences,  and not by asserting there is a law and then looking for proof that the world conforms to that law.  Gravity describes a phenomenon observed first (things fall) and later described in detail by Newton.  Such truths are the same regardless of who the observer is. Be you a rock, and ant, or a man, gravity will affect you in a predictable way.  

Evolution is similar but different , life forms change over time and rapid environmentalchanges either speeds change or results in extinction.   All life is subject to it, and the only question is why.  And there is an objective standard, what survives to produce reproducing off spring continues. But there is no objective best form of life beyond circumstances, only that which does best in a particular set of circumstances.  

Then there are almost entirely subjective things, like our perception of beauty, though our liking of certain human forms may have to do with the evolutionary fitness of those forms.

So what is it about morality, that makes it look highly objective to you as opposed to the more circumstantial evolutionary fitness standard or the extremely subject beauty perception?

What I see in morality is an evolutionary tendency of social animals, particularly mammals and birds, but not insects, reptiles, or  crustaceans except to the extent truce is necessary to copulation and open warfare would lead to extinction.  Birds and mammals raise small numbers of offsring, as opposed to insects that abandon huge numbers of eggs.  I see morality as a natural consequence of the necessity of copulation and when small numbers off offspring are involved.  Self reproducing species are amoral.  The more social a species, the more it has cooperative rules, i.e. morals.  Those morals are circumstantial,  like evolutionary fitness, because they are a kind of evolutionany fitness.  We make pets of other highly social animals because we share some sense of morals with them.

But morals are not like gravity in absolute conseqence, or perception of beauty in almost pure subjectivity.  They change with circumstances.

I agree, asserting that morality is objective is a category error, it's like saying "Purple is bigger than orange!?"