Is morality objective or subjective?

[brewer]

I think that's just disappointment that he only brought one toy home. She's still gonna play.

[Whateverist]

But though I'd really like to think that my own moral stance has a pure evolutionary background... 

Why would you like to think it has pure evolutionary background?  Do you not view yourself as an individual?  What makes you think linking your behavior to a species survival is the way to go?

Fair point.  But it is probably a pretty fair description of why our capacity to make moral judgments without blowing up the planet is as good as it is .. then again there's still plenty of time for that.

[Rev. Rye]

Do you believe ethics is a subjective concept or does it exist objectively?

Well, ethics as a concept does exist objectively.

Then again, whether the underlying concepts are subjective or objective, after a long time of study, I'm convinced the answer is "Yes."
It's objective because, on a very fundamental level, there are some rules that simply must be applied as a rule for human society to function, like don't steal, kill, rape, or generally wrong another person.
It's subjective because, looking more closely at the world, assuming that they must be applied to every single situation (like it's wrong to steal if stealing some bread is the only thing keeping you and your family from starving, or it's wrong to kill even when someone else is trying to kill you and the only way to stop them is to kill them) causes a lot more problems than they solve, and trying to figure out where and when it works out can be extremely complicated.

Case in point, A few summers ago, I read William Vollman's Rising Up and Rising Down, a long treatise (3352 pages in its original; I only read the abridged version) trying to figure out a comprehensive answer to the question "when is violence justified." Eventually, the Moral Calculus he gives takes up 78 pages (in my edition) generally saying violence is only justified a) in immediate self-defense, or B) in defense of innocents. It ends up spending 78 pages trying to suss out the many issues surrounding those statements, and I'm sure ethicists can find some points where even that's too vague. And, of course, it took a long time to get to those 78 pages.

[Nanny]

But though I'd really like to think that my own moral stance has a pure evolutionary background... 

Why would you like to think it has pure evolutionary background?  Do you not view yourself as an individual?  What makes you think linking your behavior to a species survival is the way to go?

This is my amalgamation of my reading and thoughts about this. Wish I could cite the sources correctly. 

Humans evolved as wanderers, hunter-gatherers, with behaviors that evolved from the pressures of the environment. Early humans learned behaviors that exploited their advantages in their environment. 

Then something changed. That something was agriculture. This allowed for sedentary populations with surplus resources. Humans began to specialize. Not everyone had to gather food and the population grew. Humans evolve behaviors to adapt to this new environment. Things like laws, writing, currency, caste, religion came to be. These are products of the evolution of human behavior in the "town" environment, in close proximity to others but with ample resources.

I don't think anyone disputes that evolution by natural selection includes behavior. 

I can swim because of my evolved behavior.  I have a breath-hold reflex from birth, but I can also maneuver freely in water. Both are products of the evolution of our species.

I do think that big M Morality - in the sense that a social group agrees to what is right and wrong - is an evolved social behavior. The downside is that differences lead to conflict among social groups. This is what I wish I could erase from our evolutionary history.

Edit for tl;dr we evolved culture. Morality is cultural. This leads to conflict between cultures. That stinks.

[bennyboy]

This is all semantics, I think.

Obviously, morality is rooted in the social emotions of our apelike animal nature: we love children, so treating children badly is immoral. We don't like losing resources, so we call stealing of resources immoral.

Yes, there are very great variations, but that's down to the complex way in which our ideas and emotions interact with each other and the environment, including the intellectual environment of memes. Poverty, climate, war, technology, etc. all change the context in which we must express our animal emotions.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Obviously, morality is rooted in the social emotions of our apelike animal nature: we love children, so treating children badly is immoral.  We don't like losing resources, so we call stealing of resources immoral.

Grounding morality in evolutionary imperatives would be an example of the genetic fallacy. Being good back in the day doesn't make it good today.

[Nanny]

Obviously, morality is rooted in the social emotions of our apelike animal nature: we love children, so treating children badly is immoral.  We don't like losing resources, so we call stealing of resources immoral.

Grounding morality in evolutionary imperatives would be an example of the genetic fallacy. Being good back in the day doesn't make it good today.

Culture is a collection of evolved behaviors of a social group. Morality is cultural. Roddenberry's ideals have not been achieved. We're still stuck in otherness. That may be the demise of our species.

[bennyboy]

Obviously, morality is rooted in the social emotions of our apelike animal nature: we love children, so treating children badly is immoral.  We don't like losing resources, so we call stealing of resources immoral.

Grounding morality in evolutionary imperatives would be an example of the genetic fallacy. Being good back in the day doesn't make it good today.

No, you are reading me wrong.  I'm not saying we should use the IDEA of evolution as a basis for moral IDEAS.  I'm saying that morality is an expression of our evolved humanity, which is objective.

You can see this pretty clearly in very young children. They already have a sense of right and wrong, even before they have the linguistic capacity to understand it-- they know, for example, when someone's being a dick to them, and they definitely do not appreciate it.

[Simon Moon]

I am one of the few atheists that believe there is a well thought out version of an objective morality, that is completely secular.


Unfortunately I am leaving town for a couple of days and do not have time to post it now. If this thread is still active on saturday, I will post it.

[Whateverist]

I am one of the few atheists that believe there is a well thought out version of an objective morality, that is completely secular.  


Unfortunately I am leaving town for a couple of days and do not have time to post it now. If this thread is still active on saturday, I will post it.

There may be in some sense (given some shared set of assumptions) but what difference does that make if it isn't binding or even obvious to everyone?  In the end what seems right to each person will depend on their upbringing and life experiences and perhaps an inherent disposition.

So why obsess about morality at all?  Lets go straight to a just justice system.  Solve those problems and you've got something.