Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Bad Wolf]

Beauty is a good analogy because objective beauty does exist and our perception of it certainly can't be explained by evolution.

See when you make a statement like this, you have to actually provide evidence for it. Your assertion does not persuade anybody. And here you are factually wrong, evolution does explain beauty.

We perceive a sunset or a mountain vista as beautiful. We perceive some music as beautiful.

Who is we?

If you are suggesting the beauty in a persons face is somehow programmed by evolution, I think that is also wrong. There is no evolutionary value in a pretty face.

Again, explain yourself, stop just asserting things. And yet again, you are factually wrong. A pretty face (much like a peacocks tail) makes them more attractive to the opposite sex and so more likely to mate and produce offspring. Do you actually know anything about evolution?

All that would count is that the opposite sex be young, fertile, and otherwise healthy.

And the only way for a potential mate to know this is by their looks. You really don't know what you are talking about. How about you leave biology and evolution to the biologists yea?

So, just as we have an aesthetic sense, we have a moral sense. By intuition, we know when a situation is right or wrong.

No

There are baby studies that show that even infants and toddlers recognize right and wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

A toddlers morality stretches as far as 'If I don't get caught, its ok'

[The Grand Nudger]

A toddlers morality stretches as far as 'If I don't get caught, its ok'

LOL, quoted for truth.

@steve
Of course we have "moral intuitions", we're social animals- our ability to survive and reproduce depends on working well with others. Simply having those intuitions does not make those intuitions factually accurate, or objective. Nor are those intuitions uniform amongst all human beings. Those "intuitions" are, by definition, subjective.

[Jenny A]

So the question is are morals invented, discovered or always known? If invented then they are surely subjective. If they are discovered, as I think you and Esquilax have implied, then that does nothing to undermine the argument that there are objective standards but does not go as far as having them being innate. hmm...

I'm not going to describe Esquilax's opinion, he's more than capable of doing that himself.

Mine is that our sense of morality comes from evolution. Most social animals develop a code of behavior that could be called moral. What we humans have are moral feelings or tendencies which are genetic. They are cooperative and empathetic and tend to be stronger among family and tribe. But they aren't necessarily rational especially in larger groups and they don't always lead to what we think of as moral behavior today. Since as long as there have been people, we've been refining the rules of morality with tradition and reason.

Traditional rules can be wholly irrational taboos which might have made sense in an earlier society, or which are merely superstition.
For example, in a society where a woman would have great difficulty raising a child alone and men were unwilling to help raise a child not their own, laws about adultery, and premarital sex that may have made sense once, but no longer do in the light of birth control and great equality between the sexes.
Laws prohibiting the seething of a calf in it's mother's milk, or not picking up sticks on the Sabbath, fall into the superstitious catagory as do most other religious precepts such as not taking the lord's name in vain.

In order to reason about morality, we set objective standards such as:

1) which rules would result in the most benefit for the most people; or
2) what rules would a rational person think equitable if they had to make the rules before they were born and knew what their position in society would be?

Objective standards are standards we agree on to look at morality. They are objective in that they provide a rule with which to make decisions. However, choosing objective standards is a subjective activity. Objective standards are not something existing independently that we "discover."

Objective standards are often used overturn older traditional morals. Hence changing views over the last 150 years about the death penalty, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, religious freedom, race discrimination and on and on.

[pocaracas]

Jenny, this talk of standards reminded me of other types of standards...
The USB standard being a very widely known one, at the moment.
Is the USB standard objective or subjective?
Did USB exist before the IEEE board convened and decided upon its specifications?

[Jenny A]

Jenny, this talk of standards reminded me of other types of standards...
The USB standard being a very widely known one, at the moment.
Is the USB standard objective or subjective?
Did USB exist before the IEEE board convened and decided upon its specifications?

The USB standard is objective. But wait? . . . You mean the IEEE board didn't "discover" the standard? It just decided on specifications that would work? Not the ideal specifications? You've ruined my faith in data storage technology.

[Angrboda]

We perceive that the earth is flat, but we know that perception is an illusion. Perception alone is seldom truly reliable.

I don't believe in objective morality, but neither am I a moral relativist. Biology and culture conspire to create moral sensations which, because they are intuitive, can't be easily reasoned about. That's why they appear objective.

Is there one "master list" of acceptable values?

No.

What about biology can create an intuitive moral code?

Primarily a common brain and neurology, but the whole body contributes.

Which culture conspired to create moral sensations?

I said biology and culture conspire. Asking me how one or the other does it alone is straw manning my position. Culture modifies our biological reactions.

[Esquilax]

Beauty is a good analogy because objective beauty does exist and our perception of it certainly can't be explained by evolution.

I'm going to do you a huge favor and ignore the repeated fiat assertion and the argument from ignorance you just committed (but seriously, stop doing that. As Bad Wolf said, you need to provide evidence when you say things like this) and just remind you that I gave you an example of how our evolution has influenced our concept of beauty in the post you are responding to. The things we find ugly in organisms (I hope you can see how this is too large a topic to exhaustively cover in one post) like bared teeth, asymmetry, sharp edges and so on, are all things that spelled death for us in our evolutionary past. Even in our concept of beauty in humans outright aggression- which is signified through a lot of the same imagery- isn't considered beautiful, while a more natural, placid or happy expression is. Things that we find cute, like big eyes and so on, are traits that our infants have; that pleasure response is due to the visual similarities there.

This isn't hard to see, and can in fact be studied. The fact that you think it "can't be explained" isn't an issue. It can be, you just aren't aware of that. But you are now, so...

We perceive a sunset or a mountain vista as beautiful. We perceive some music as beautiful. If you are suggesting the beauty in a persons face is somehow programmed by evolution, I think that is also wrong.

That's great. But what you think isn't relevant. What you can demonstrate is.

There is no evolutionary value in a pretty face.

What do you mean? A pretty face denotes health, youth and vitality, all things that are good to have in a breeding partner. That's recursive, by the way; our ideal for "a pretty face," comes from the fact that those traits we associate with beautiful features do denote health, and were thus selected for. See, our concept of beauty in humans evolved in tandem with the rest of our traits. It's pretty cool, if very complex and hard to explain comprehensively.

All that would count is that the opposite sex be young, fertile, and otherwise healthy.

... Which tends to show up in their appearance.

We're a visual species, Steve. And we aren't the only ones, either; surely you've seen birds put on mating displays and whatnot?

It is absurd to think that 60 year old Kim Basinger is not more attractive then most 60 year old women--none of which are ready to bare children.

Do you think evolution is somehow aware of that? It's not a precision process, dude; the traits that make her beautiful persist, even beyond the age of viability for breeding. So what?

So, just as we have an aesthetic sense, we have a moral sense. By intuition, we know when a situation is right or wrong. There are baby studies that show that even infants and toddlers recognize right and wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

Yep, social instincts are an evolved trait. Those that are more instinctively able to cooperate within the human social structure get to breed more with time, as they're able to better interact with others. Conversely, those lacking those instincts breed less, for the same reason.

[Mudhammam]

Esquilax - 22
SteveII - 0

I'm impressed with Steve. Page after page he gets knocked on his ass and yet he comes back, only to deliver another moot point in his attempt to defend religious dogma. The question remains: at what point will he decide to retreat, study more, and return to declare that he understands why we all watched his meek attempts with pity?

[SteveII]

@Esquilax: I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to type out these replies. I understand you don't have to and that you are showing a remarkable amount of patience in doing so. I am impressed with your subject knowledge and the intelligence that you display in your writing. I also appreciate the respect and tone.

[Baqal]

So, are you tired of beating a dead horse, Steve?