@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.
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.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
