Objective Morality?

[Captain Scarlet]

I agree that it does not exist in the concept that a theist would purport that is exists. However, objective morality may exist on some level. It may very well be the smallest of platforms, but I think it could be argued that it does exist. I don't know of any society (correct me if I'm wrong) that has ever endorsed random violence (killing) of its own people or a society that has ever excused all forms of murder, rape and theft. There does seem to be a general consensus the world over of a very basic nature that opposes violence when it is unchecked and unwarranted within it's own group.

The natural explanation for this, is that any society which did condone wanton destruction of life, property etc would quickly die out leaving only societies that did not condone it.

Even the majority of captured serial killers (and of course there are exceptions) who admittedly do not understand why they killed for no reason understand that what they did was wrong on some level. Could this not be argued as objective morality? The understanding that unwarranted violence is inherently wrong seems to be a global phenomenon. Ruling out war and all things associated with conquest and even slavery, there seems to be a basic platform of object morality that may very well have never been defined but exists none the less.

I think thats wrong at least in some cases. The psychopath knows no such good or evil distinction, they go to the hangman wondering why what they did was so wrong. To most of us this appears wrong, but stick all these folks on an island and a new society should emerge, and or kill itself.

Perhaps a natural ancient survival instinct ... "If I kill indiscriminately, I will be killed." or maybe, "I do not kill my own kind, cause we need each other to survive." Perhaps this concept became the platform we now call morality. Just theorizing at this point. All I'm saying is there seems to be a general sense of objective morality that seems to be at the core of all the subjective morality - which of course, is where you get the supernatural input. God gets to take the credit for all morality when in reality, the object morality platform is simply a result of millions of years of evolution.

Just theorizing of course.

Empathy is something we learn in infancy, usually from maternal bonding. Isn't that what we are really saying here: I wouldn't want others to suffer, for my own sake as well as theirs, because I can imagine it happening to me or my family.

These are interesting points. I agree that a god is not required for any of this but why call this objective morality? It seems to mystify something we can comprehend on a purely naturalistic basis and still I am left feeling that talk of morality is meaningless. Interesting nonetheless.