CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Logically speaking, yes.. I think morality is interlinked to emotions, and while morality may be subjective to all of us in different topics, (which involves our opinion on the issue), but such as that of basic survival issues involve morality that's centered somehow to "survival" in that scenario.. morality doesn't exist on a life threatening scenario, or I'd rather say there's a different sense of morality in such conditions.. which might be wrong to your otherwise non threatened state.. what was wrong becomes right and hence morality fails as a whole, morality is formed with the conditions surrounding you, which means an "act" cannot be "wrong" or "right" intrinsically, but it depends on the conditions you think in.
I'd say yes, because there is no set of moral rules which one could claim to be unquestionable. Even if religions claim to have a set of rules laid down by the creator of everything, or something like that, it is still questionable - things couldn't be wrong simply because a god says so, right? That would be arbitrary. Right and wrong is really just a figment of our imagination, perhaps even if a god exists, which I doubt. I still think we should do what we subjectively think to be "right", but it's hard to say why for any logical reason.
-In the real world if a "wrong" is done to me, sure I would see it as wrong, but the person who did it might not. I don't see how any of that translates to something being intrinsically wrong.
-I agree that the survival of humans depends on our "very basic ideas of what we deem rights or wrong," but that alone doesn't make something objectively right or wrong, especially to a non-human.
Okay , you say ..... but that alone doesn't make something objectively right or wrong, especially to a non-human......
So let's say a non human was present who did not understand the concept of right and wrong and we witnessed what we deemed a moral wrong and pointed it out to him , he would be baffled as to what we mean because it means that wrongness is a property an action has.
Pretty much, though it wouldn't mean wrongness IS a property an action has, just something humans say is a property an action has. Humans saying something has a certain property doesn't mean it has that property.
This non-human would still be baffled, yes. But if we could explain what we mean by right and wrong then he might disagree with our assessment of a moral wrong.
The law of reason is firmly on the side of Nihilism. There is no evidence that good or evil predate humanity and therefore there is no reason to believe morality is anything other than a word invented to describe the value (or lack of value) of certain human social behaviours.
In fact, humanity does not even agree with itself about which behaviours are socially acceptable and which are not, since this is often dependent on culture, history, religion and politics.
In my view, Moral Nihilism is "Technically" true, and "Practically" false.
My position is somewhat of a Absolute Moral Relativism if you will!
The best way of explaining it is using the game of monopoly. This game has a predefined set of rules, and allowable actions. Think of this as the "Moral code" of monopoly, you can collect $200 when passing go, buy properties, etc.
If two people play and one person decides to collect $500 and not $200, there will be objection and accusations of cheating. But, if the first person has always played the game collecting $500, and the other collecting $200, the issue is not entirely that one is breaking the rules and the other is not: it's the case that they're both playing by different sets of rules.
Now, imaging that the game is stopped, and everyone gets up and starts doing their own thing in real life. The concept that the rules of the game apply universally, is ridiculous. One does not go through life trying to collect $200 just by passing Go.
That may seem like a clunky analogy (and it somewhat is), but what I'm trying to illustrate is this:
As humans, we are all "playing a game" using a set of moral rules. Those moral rules are a product partly of genetics and partly of social upbringing, but on the whole other humans mostly play by similar rules. The concepts of Good and Bad, Moral or immoral are defined using those rules; not the other way around.
What that would mean, is that if you removed yourself from the human experience, removed those learned rules and replace them with something else, what we would consider moral or not would immediately and vastly change.
This leads to the conclusion that outside of humanity, or a moral frame of reference, the world is amoral.
Indeed, this makes sense when you look at nature, or the universe: Lions eat competitors Cubs, there is significant wanton violence and death; cats are assholes in general.
That's okay, because Morality isn't objective, or meaningful outside of our own experience.
if you say that there can be no such thing as moral rights or wrongs there can be no such thing as rational actions , if so how ?
There cannot be rational or irrational actions . One would have to drop all such references to judgements of this nature . One could not judge it rational to follow ones own likes or dislikes You cannot even judge it rational . That is merely arbitrary.
That's a good point, but I don't see how that answers the topic at hand. It just leads onto the question of whether or not rational actions can exist. I might be misinterpreting you, but it seems that you assume rational actions already exist, therefore moral nihilism is wrong. I kind of understand your point if the assumption is correct, but I would like a reason why the assumption that rational actions exist is valid.
I agree with you now that rational actions do exist, and are brought into existence by us, but I'm now not so sure that this makes absolute moral rights or wrongs necessary. You asked earlier: if so, how?
Well here's an example of a thought process leading to rational action without the need for any sort of absolute/objective right or wrong: "I'm hungry, I don't want to be hungry, therefore I should eat." Rational action = getting off my ass and going to the fridge. You may ask why it matters that I'm hungry if there's no objective reason to live, but I'd argue that since the choice exists (to eat/live or not to eat/live) either option is rational and will lead to rational action if it's backed up by reason, like "I don't want to be hungry." I think following desires, like wanting to eat, can be a rational reason to do rational things. In fact you could carry this logic on to "I don't want people to suffer, therefore I will try to reduce suffering where possible." This is a rational morality, with rational moral actions as a result, but it definitely isn't absolute/objective, as it is based on my desire for people not to suffer, and others may have differing desires - who am I to say my desires outweigh other people's desires? (Edit: the reason
I don't want to see people suffer comes from empathy)
As for the last part of your most recent argument, yes I do agree that a moral nihilist would have "descriptive morals that reflect cause and effect," kind of like the example I just gave. I might say that the morals re also based on empathy. I just don't believe those morals have any absolute value, as others have different opinions with equal value to mine. It's not like science or something, where there is objective truth, as morals are based on emotions, right?
The thing I said about morality based on desires might not be entirely correct, as there are times when I desire to do things I would deem as immoral. I think I'm onto something but I'm not sure yet. I'll have to think about this one for a while.
there are times when I desire to do things I would deem as immoral.
Only because your culture has taught you that they are immoral. What is moral is one culture may very well be considered immoral in another, and it is precisely this subjectivity which proves that morality is not a real thing. Or, at the very least, is relative to the observer.
I somewhat agree with you, but I don't think my own morality can be based off of my culture alone, as people within that culture disagree about what is right or wrong. I think morality is a combination of one's own empathy (which just evolved for the benefit of the species) and the collective opinions based off of everyone's empathy, which can persuade people to believe in certain moral principles they might not otherwise, which is the culturally subjective morality you mentioned.
Thanks for that Mack ; it's a well constructed and thought out piece , you finish with .... as morals are based on emotions right ?
How do you feel about the statement that morals are based on reason alone , and once we understand this ,we would see that acting morally is same as acting Rationally ?
I'm kind of happy with the statement that morals are based on reason alone. I suppose you could then say bad morals come from bad reasoning... if that's true, then there might be an objective right/wrong, as reason is objectively right or wrong, as you sort of say with "we would see that acting morally is same as acting Rationally?"
But as I somewhat hinted at before with "since the choice exists (to eat/live or not to eat/live) either option is rational and will lead to rational action if it's backed up by reason, like "I don't want to be hungry." I think following desires, like wanting to eat, can be a rational reason to do rational things," this may just be rational following of irrational desires?
Acting according to one's own subjective morals might be acting rationally and morally. I've often thought that perhaps objective morality exists in the form of just doing what you subjectively think to be right, rather than obeying a certain set of rules or something. This would then mean it is impossible to make blanket statements like "genocide is always wrong," even if most people, myself included, would agree with that statement. Instead, the only blanket statement possible would be that an act is morally right only if the person doing it thinks it is morally right. (The person might have to think their own act morally right or wrong for irrational reasons though, emotions and things, but I think that's acceptable)
Let's use the classic example of Hitler (note: I've never read mein kampf or anything, I have no idea what was going on inside his head): Let's assume that he thought it was morally right to attempt to exterminate the Jews. If he honestly believed that, then maybe he was acting in an objectively morally right way? You couldn't say he was evil if he thought he was doing something that was morally right, right?. I feel somewhat uncomfortable saying Hitler was a decent guy, just with different morals to me, but perhaps that's the truth.
If my little theory is right here then moral nihilism would be wrong, do you think my little theory is right?
P.S. this perhaps is an attempt at an answer to your other question of "how can objective morality exist?"
l like debates like this they're a lot of fun and as you've probably guessed I like to try many different approaches to the subject of morality as one question leads to another doesn't it ?
Regarding Hitler yes he surely believed he was morally right yet our perceptions regarding this would be different ; I can think of examples where societies believe they are doing great moral rights when in fact we believe the total opposite , take the execution of homosexuals in a good proportion of Muslim countries something we would deem totally immoral.
Morality worldwide is evolving and changing all the time and is influenced and informed by society .
Regarding our alien friends and the wrongness we talked about and how one would detect it , the alien might ask ' by saying someone is doing something 'wrong ' you humans mean they ought not to do it , don't you ?
The fact that someone is doing something wrong is a totally different fact to the ones we can observe .
By saying that someone is doing something wrong you are saying more than what he is doing ,you are saying he ought not be doing what he is doing .
So you are no longer just talking about what is the case .
I think your theory is very well reasoned and I like it , the whole morality question I enjoy but it leaves one tied in knots
👌 confusing questions can bring up some great exchanges , if you have any please post them up in debate and who knows where it may lead ; it's been a pleasure debating with you 👌
As far as I can see, you are concerned here with the desired outcome of an action rather than the actual outcome of an action. In other words it is the motivation of an action rather than the result that makes an action moral or not. I would state that there are two different moral concepts: moral intent and moral result. My statements up until now have been in regards to moral result.
Interestingly it seems the most immoral of deeds are allegedly morally motivated. My view on this is that the discrepancy is often caused by one of several things, one of which being the perpetrator's arrogant overestimation of their own intellect and the completeness of the information available to them. It is very difficult to determine whether complicated actions will have a positive or negative effect, particularly if the action involves risk.
A ruler may massacre a whole city because he suspects them of treachery. If the city was indeed traitorous it may have sparked a civil war which could have resulted in millions dead. Whereas killing the tens of thousands of city-dwellers may prevent such catastrophe. However by destroying the city perhaps resentment is stirred up which actually starts a civil war. In addition, the city could have been dealt with in other ways if it even was going to oppose the ruler (which it may not have been). The issue here being, however, that the ruler was arrogant and decided in a vague situation that they knew best. Alternatively perhaps they convinced themselves of the morality of the action so that they could act in their best interests. To me the second view makes most sense, particularly as we know one's logic serves one's emotions and desires: one's logos serves one's pathos.
In addition, often evil deeds are justified by painting the other group as evil and therefore deserving of whatever is done to them. We have seen this recently with the depiction of all right wingers as Nazis by radical elements of the left. This also applies to Hitler viewing Jews as subhuman (if he actually did, I find it more likely he simply wanted to scapegoat them and appropriate their wealth). These people draw the line of good and evil between group boundaries instead of acknowledging that the line of good and evil runs down every individual. As such, everything their group does is perfectly moral and everything the other group does is evil.
In my estimation people are generally serving their self-interest when they rationalize immoral acts as moral (we know people's minds do all sorts of tricks to convince themselves of their own positive features). There are of course examples of when good intent leads to negative outcomes and vice versa, I just feel the most egregious examples are actually self-serving individuals justifying what they want(ed) to do. Furthermore people generally don't know the actual reasons for their own behavior.
I can agree, though, that there are two different moral concepts: moral intent and moral result. I do however doubt absolutely everybody that asserts their intent was good when they performed evil acts in service of this alleged intent, for the reasons detailed above.
I don't quite mean that the desired effects of the action are what determine whether or not it is good, just whether or not the person believes that the desired outcome of the effects will be morally good.
My point with that theory about moral intent is that moral result is worthless (or at least only subjectively meaningful), and only the moral intent has any objective meaning, at least when determining if the person was right or wrong to do something. This means there are no acts that can be classified as immoral on the whole simply because of the result of the acts.
As to your "one's logos serves one's pathos" point, it is definitely a good one, but I think that my theory/hypothesis applies to what the person honestly believed was right, for whatever reason. Even if they convinced themselves it was right before doing it (at least subconsciously) then they are still doing what they believe to be morally right, and that makes it morally right, according to my hypothesis anyways.
To knowingly wrongly paint a group of people as evil is wrong, but people who honestly believe another group to be evil and act accordingly to what they think is morally right, would still be good people, regardless of the actual result of their action.
" I do however doubt absolutely everybody that asserts their intent was good when they performed evil acts in service of this alleged intent"
One problem with my theory (although I'm not sure it's a problem - just something that it doesn't help with) is that it can't be used to tell someone what they should think is right. My theory is only useful for determining what is morally right after the action has taken place. Maybe this leaves room for you saying that something causing a net positive effect on conscious entities should be the desired purpose (moral intent) of an action, but this then leaves the two theories contradicting each other, as mine asserts that anything action be considered morally okay, while yours asserts otherwise.
I think only one (or neither) of our theories can be correct for this reason. It really is a very interesting topic of debate. Thanks for taking the time to look at this argument, and thanks for creating this debate, I've enjoyed it a lot. :)
"I don't quite mean that the desired effects of the action are what determine whether or not it is good, just whether or not the person believes that the desired outcome of the effects will be morally good."
I know, I'm merely making the distinction between the concepts of moral intent and moral result.
"My point with that theory about moral intent is that moral result is worthless (or at least only subjectively meaningful)"
It really makes no sense to assert this. I've extensively explained why the experience of conscious entities has significance (and in fact is the only source of significance).
"only the moral intent has any objective meaning, at least when determining if the person was right or wrong to do something"
When we speak of the concept of moral intent, this is indeed the case. The problem with this, however, is that if people focus on intent rather than result it will lead to a lack of intellectual understanding of result. As a consequence the world will become a worse place because people wouldn't think much about result, only intent. After all, we know even the greatest of villains usually at least claim good intent.
"they are still doing what they believe to be morally right, and that makes it morally right"
This is why I distinguish between the two different concepts: moral intent and moral result. I merely spoke to how moral intent is rather unclear, even to the actor themselves. I wasn't attacking your theory based on it, rather the purpose was to add some depth to the issue. It is completely possible that the majority (or even entirety!) of evil deeds are caused by people's unwillingness to engage with the truth of their own motivations.
"To knowingly wrongly paint a group of people as evil is wrong, but people who honestly believe another group to be evil and act accordingly to what they think is morally right, would still be good people, regardless of the actual result of their action. "
Can we truly know whether these people did such mental distortions on purpose? I'm not saying it is the case that they always are on purpose but that it's possible that they are. It's definitely the case that they are purposeful sometimes.
"One problem with my theory (although I'm not sure it's a problem - just something that it doesn't help with) is that it can't be used to tell someone what they should think is right. My theory is only useful for determining what is morally right after the action has taken place. Maybe this leaves room for you saying that something causing a net positive effect on conscious entities should be the desired purpose (moral intent) of an action, but this then leaves the two theories contradicting each other, as mine asserts that anything action be considered morally okay, while yours asserts otherwise."
My statements certainly do have implications for action. Interestingly though, most people already know these on some level. I don't think moral intent and moral result are the same thing, which is why I made the distinction immediately. Once again, though, I do question the truthfulness of one's alleged intent when committing evil deeds.
"I think only one (or neither) of our theories can be correct for this reason. It really is a very interesting topic of debate. Thanks for taking the time to look at this argument, and thanks for creating this debate, I've enjoyed it a lot. :)"
Thanks to you too! I love challenging debates that necessitate thinking one's positions through.
if you say that there can be no such thing as moral rights or wrongs there can be no such thing as rational actions
That's a total, spectacular, raging non-sequitur. You honestly believe that if there is no such thing as moral rights or wrongs then I can't rationally decide not to stick my head in a bucket of lava?
Wow. I would honestly love to do a long case study of your diseased mind.
But you are pedantic , yes deep is a concept you're unaware off and yes you are intellectually retarded as in your last conspiracy theory debate ... thank you for clarifying 👌
Let me correct you yet again , what you obviously mean is you would like to get into a classroom a privilege which is blatantly obvious you were deprived of .
Syntax you probably think is something you pay the government for wrongdoing 🙀
Quantumhead isn't here for legitimate debate, he is a troll. I can prove it with the below:
W:"If you google search the phrase "equality of opportunity" you will get the same result no matter where you click."
Q:"If I Google equality this is what I get:-
"the state of being equal"
And if I Google opportunity this is what I get:-
"a set of circumstances"
So, for probably the sixth or seventh time, I refer you to the unequal set of circumstances created by giving a Rubik's Cube to both a village idiot and a child prodigy, and telling them their lives depend on solving it."
He wants us to believe he isn't capable of using google, I personally credit any PC literate human above the age of ten with this ability. As such, him being a troll is the only explanation left. There are a lot of other examples of this sort of behavior if you check our debate on equality of opportunity.
Yes Winston , I concluded yesterday he is a troll and every debate has him hurling insults at those who correct his nonsense , he asked me to prove he insulted people I gave several examples so he is also a liar .
He's a dreadful debater and I agree the only explanation is he's a troll
Looking objectively at morality it is clear that it is concerned with the experience of conscious entities. An action that causes a net positive effect for present and future experiences of conscious entities is a morally good one.
When one causes another conscious entity negative experience that isn't necessary or helpful this is a moral wrong. The same goes for depriving another conscious entity of positive experience. In other words, killing someone is a moral wrong, unless the person is in great suffering, has no future and wants to die. Putting children through school may not be morally wrong because it provides a greater quality of life later. Eating meat is (at least in my view) necessary to a balanced diet, as such the humane slaughter of animals may not be morally wrong.
Giving other conscious entities positive experience or greater ability to court positive experience is a moral good. On the other hand giving conscious entities positive experience that causes them harm in the long term is a moral wrong. So letting your children watch TV all day instead of learning is morally wrong because later in life they will be less able to court positive experience (despite the immediate positive experience). Stroking a cat in a manner that it enjoys is a moral good.
Further causing other conscious entities to be willing and/or able to cause others to have positive experiences and greater ability to court positive experience is a moral meta-good. Causing other conscious entities to be unwilling and/or unable to do so is a moral meta-evil. For example, one might inspire people to volunteer for a charity and provide the means to do so. This would be a moral meta-good. It is also possible to go to higher levels of moral meta-good; whereby conscious entities are inspiring conscious entities to inspire conscious entities and so on.
It can often be difficult to determine if an action is moral. However even if absolutely everyone is ignorant of the morality of the action, it's morality or immortality doesn't change.
"It can often be difficult to determine if an action is moral. However even if absolutely everyone is ignorant of the morality of the action, it's morality or immortality doesn't change."
But morality is ever evolving and changing so what was once deemed moral in the past may be looked on differently in the future it's all subjective isn't it ?
I've objectively conceptualized morality in my above post. As such, it isn't subjective, though I welcome criticism of this idea of objective morality. People's belief that the world is flat doesn't change it's shape, and the same is true for people's beliefs on the concept of morality.
Yes , I'm merely testing the waters . So if I ask where does morality come from the possible answers would be ....
It comes from us
It comes from god
Or
There are objective moral facts
It seems when we say ' killing is wrong ' we are making a claim made true by a fact as in that killing really is wrong and it seems this fact is an objective fact even if we said killing was right ,killing would still be wrong
But we come up against a problem if wrongness is a property killing has anyway whatever anyone may think about killing how do we detect this property ?
We cannot detect it. In which case we couldn't know that killing is wrong , it seems it can't be an objective moral fact that killing is wrong .
I did think you were against moral nihilism, I should play devils advocate more too. I'm just disputing so that I'm not in the For camp and the side score matters to me for some reason.
I'm not of the mind that killing is always immoral. For example I'd leap at a chance to kill a serial killer in the act and label it moral. The reason being of course that by killing a serial killer I would be preventing further murders. Further a dying man may ask for the mercy of a quick death, giving it to him isn't immoral.
My view is that humans did indeed conceptualize morality (just like every other concept). However like other true concepts it is describing underlying phenomena which humanity didn't invent. These phenomena are the net outcomes of an action on the experiences of present and future conscious entities.
I enjoy trying different approaches on the whole morality question as it interests me .
I think I get what you're saying but are you clear on my point let me put it another way ......
Suppose I believe there is a bottle on my table my belief may be true or false , suppose my belief is true what makes it true is a certain corresponding fact that there is a bottle on the table ; this is an objective fact which means it's true whether or not I or anyone else knows there's a bottle on my table , and no matter what I or anyone else might feel about there being a bottle on my table .
If there are objective moral facts that means morality is ' out there 'independent of us all , how do we discover these facts or how do we detect the property as in wrongness that acts like killing have ?
We aren't always able to gauge the objective morality of an act. We can, however, through using our social awareness, empathy and other skills, get a good idea of the effect our actions have on others. For example, when one strokes a cat and it purrs, the purring is indicative of it having a positive conscious experience. When one gives a starving child food and they scoff it up in front of you, then beam up at you and hug you in gratitude it is clear one has gifted the child a positive experience. In addition, we can utilize our ability to empathize and put ourselves in other people's shoes. We know we would like to be given food if we were starving and so we can estimate that by giving a starving person food we are doing a good thing.
Interestingly when a non-psychopathic, non-autistic individual watches another, they vicariously experience what the other is experiencing (source 1). This is why watching somebody step on a nail is so horrible and why watching TV shows and pornography is so enjoyable. As such, we do have an in-built means of gauging the effect of our actions on others, because we vicariously experience what any person or animal we are observing experiences.
Can you give a reason why these assertions about objective morality, and net positive effects are correct? I agree with Dermot in that you cannot detect something as being morally wrong/right, and perhaps that just means objective morality doesn't exist? If morality comes from humans or a god or something then it is just arbitrary and subjective, right, especially since I don't think it can be measured? If morality is just floating around without the need for humans, etc, then were could it have come from? Does it have to come from somewhere? I think this topic is the most confusing one out there.
"Can you give a reason why these assertions about objective morality, and net positive effects are correct?"
Morality emerged as a concept to describe the phenomenon of causing conscious entities a net negative or positive experience (and the related phenomena i described). Since these phenomena can be objectively defined, as above, an action can be objectively moral or immoral.
"especially since I don't think it can be measured?"
In terms of our ability to measure such outcomes, if we had complete information (and the ability to process it all) we would be able to do so with complete accuracy. As it stands, however, we can still get pretty accurate in our measurement, especially in simpler situations. To quote my post to Dermot on this point of measurement:
WinstonC: We aren't always able to gauge the objective morality of an act. We can, however, through using our social awareness, empathy and other skills, get a good idea of the effect our actions have on others. For example, when one strokes a cat and it purrs, the purring is indicative of it having a positive conscious experience. When one gives a starving child food and they scoff it up in front of you, then beam up at you and hug you in gratitude it is clear one has gifted the child a positive experience. In addition, we can utilize our ability to empathize and put ourselves in other people's shoes. We know we would like to be given food if we were starving and so we can estimate that by giving a starving person food we are doing a good thing.
Interestingly when a non-psychopathic, non-autistic individual watches another, they vicariously experience what the other is experiencing (source 1). This is why watching somebody step on a nail is so horrible and why watching TV shows and pornography is so enjoyable. As such, we do have an in-built means of gauging the effect of our actions on others, because we vicariously experience what any person or animal we are observing experiences.
I think you've missed a step, and gone straight to defining morality with "Morality emerged as a concept to describe the phenomenon of causing conscious entities a net negative or positive experience." I think the debate is almost about whether or not causing a net negative or net positive effect on other conscious entities is wrong or right. You've just gone and skipped that part. I'll rephrase my question; why is it wrong to cause a net negative effect on another conscious entity? (I don't think an answer like 'empathy' will suffice here, but I'm not sure)
Everything you said after quoting me on "especially since I don't think it can be measured?" makes perfect sense, but only if the above definition of morality is correct.
Also, I'm not sure the phrase conscious entity is 100% correct here. What about a person who's asleep, it would be wrong to kill them right? Animals are also conscious entities, and many people, myself included (maybe you too), have no real problems with the humane killing of animals for food. Feel free to ignore this last point, it's just a nitpick.
"I think you've missed a step, and gone straight to defining morality with "Morality emerged as a concept to describe the phenomenon of causing conscious entities a net negative or positive experience.""
Humans construct concepts to explain real-world phenomena. It is clear to me that the concept of morality is based on estimation of the net effect an action has on conscious entities. This is why killing, raping, stealing etc. are considered wrong.
"why is it wrong to cause a net negative effect on another conscious entity?"
The only thing that gives existence meaning is consciousness: without consciousness nothing has any meaning. As such, positively affecting conscious entities is a good thing and negatively affecting them is a bad thing. Does your own pain and pleasure have any significance/meaning? If so, why is it different for any other entity?
"Also, I'm not sure the phrase conscious entity is 100% correct here. What about a person who's asleep, it would be wrong to kill them right?"
You're using a different definition of consciousness there. Consciousness in the context of what I'm saying is referring to the thing that experiences: the philosophical phenomenon (noun) rather than the physical state (adjective). As such, a conscious entity doesn't cease to be conscious in this sense when it sleeps. Even then though, while an asleep human is not entirely aware of the world around them, which is what we mean when we call them unconscious in this state, they appear to still be consciously experiencing (Source 1). In any case, even if the entity wasn't caused negative experience, by removing the person from existence you would be robbing them of all future positive experience and the ability to give others positive experience. Usually there would also be others adversely affected by the death.
"Animals are also conscious entities, and many people, myself included (maybe you too), have no real problems with the humane killing of animals for food."
If you read my first post fully you can see that I explained my personal position on this already, quoted below:
WinstonC: "Eating meat is (at least in my view) necessary to a balanced diet, as such the humane slaughter of animals may not be morally wrong."
Though if we're talking about the morality of eating meat, I'd note that as long as one can afford it they should spend a little extra and buy free-range animal products. Factory farming procedures are dire.
I ask: does consciousness have any meaning outside of the subjective meaning to conscious beings, and does that matter? (This might be a whole different debate)
"As such, positively affecting conscious entities is a good thing and negatively affecting them is a bad thing"
Assuming consciousness does result in meaning, I can't see any justifiable reason why it is objectively morally wrong (in most cases, ignore things like self defense for now) to hurt something that has meaning. It may seem wrong to us, as we experience consciousness ourselves, but does that alone make it wrong. It seems to me that humans basically invented morality, rather than "constructed a concept to explain real-world phenomena" as you put it - the real world phenomena are suffering and pleasure, not morality.
If so, than wouldn't morality only be governed by what people think about it, and (since philosophy isn't a democracy) different opinions all hold equal weight, leading to no objective morality (only subjective).
I had an interesting conversation with Dermot up above in this debate (at the top of the against side in this debate) which kind of had a result (look specifically at my post which begins with the words "I'm kind of happy with...") that I thought was relevant to this subjective morality thing I mentioned. You'll see that I'm not entirely a moral nihilist, and that we meet a kind of middle ground with my "little theory" as I put it. It would be nice to hear your thoughts on that "little theory", as I think you might have some good input.
Also, thank you very much for the clarification of my misuse of the term "consciousness." I was unaware that there was more than one definition.
"I ask: does consciousness have any meaning outside of the subjective meaning to conscious beings, and does that matter? (This might be a whole different debate)"
Given that consciousness is the only avenue through which anything can have meaning I would ask why it is that you believe consciousness' meaning to be subjective rather than objective? The only known thing in the universe that makes anything have any meaning or significance is consciousness. Biological machines could kill each other for eternity on rocks orbiting balls of fire, yet it would all have no significance without a consciousness there to experience it (or the potential for future consciousnesses).
"Assuming consciousness does result in meaning, I can't see any justifiable reason why it is objectively morally wrong (in most cases, ignore things like self defense for now) to hurt something that has meaning. It may seem wrong to us, as we experience consciousness ourselves, but does that alone make it wrong."
First of all, please do me the respect of reading my first post. I've already talked of necessity which applies to things like self defense, or as you asked in your previous post, consumption of meat. Besides, if one responds with appropriate force, self defense would actually serve to have a net positive effect for conscious entities.
Consciousness creates conscious experience which has significance. Since conscious experience has significance, to cause negative conscious experience is a bad thing. Of course there are times when this is necessary or helpful and I included these in my original post. Since we know negative conscious experience has meaning it is objectively wrong to cause others a net negative experience that isn't helpful or necessary. If conscious experience had no significance (paradoxical, I know), then it wouldn't be wrong to have a net negative effect on conscious entities.
"It seems to me that humans basically invented morality, rather than "constructed a concept to explain real-world phenomena" as you put it - the real world phenomena are suffering and pleasure, not morality. "
The real world phenomena are indeed actions which cause suffering and pleasure. As such humans conceptualized morality to describe actions which cause these outcomes. To reiterate: like other true concepts it is describing underlying phenomena which humanity didn't invent. These phenomena are the net outcomes of an action on the experiences of present and future conscious entities.
"If so, than wouldn't morality only be governed by what people think about it, and (since philosophy isn't a democracy) different opinions all hold equal weight, leading to no objective morality (only subjective). "
I've already refuted the base of this argument. However, I had already demonstrated that one can objectively determine the morality of an act through it's net impact on conscious entities. As such it doesn't hold that what people think has any bearing on the matter. Flat earthers don't have any effect on the shape of the globe.
"It would be nice to hear your thoughts on that "little theory", as I think you might have some good input."
I believe consciousness' meaning to be subjective rather than objective because it is only important to conscious beings. Those biological machines you mentioned wouldn't care about us any more than we'd care about them.
I still don't think you've fully answered why it's objectively morally wrong to cause a net negative experience on a conscious entity, but I think we could both go all day rephrasing the same arguments to each other and not make any headway in either direction. I'd rather end this conversation here for the sake of saving time, and agree to disagree. You've definitely made me think a lot though, so I thank you for that.
"I believe consciousness' meaning to be subjective rather than objective because it is only important to conscious beings."
Nothing has meaning without consciousness. Consciousness gives everything else meaning. I would ask, other than the meaning/significance conferred by consciousness, what meaning/significance is there in reality? Does anything matter at all if there are no conscious entities? If consciousness is the only source of meaning in the universe then it certainly does have objective meaning.
"Those biological machines you mentioned wouldn't care about us any more than we'd care about them."
When I mentioned biological machines and orbiting balls of rock I'm saying that without consciousness (or the possibility for future consciousnesses) no event has any meaning. This world could go on for eternity without consciousness and absolutely none of it would have any meaning or significance whatsoever.
"I still don't think you've fully answered why it's objectively morally wrong to cause a net negative experience on a conscious entity"
Given that conscious experience has meaning (which it unquestionably does) such a position isn't tenable. I'm certain you are aware that your own suffering and pleasure has meaning/significance. As such, it makes no sense to assert that another's suffering and pleasure has no meaning/significance.
Just because consciousness is the only source of subjective meaning (that we can imagine), doesn't mean it has objective meaning. All sorts of things and events might mean a lot to conscious beings, but I don't see how that becomes objective meaning.
Lets say consciousness does have objective meaning though (for argument's sake), I can see why a bad effect, like suffering, has objective meaning as well, but, we are missing the step of whether it is actually a bad effect. Sure, the conscious entities will generally agree that suffering is bad, but there's no reason to accept that conclusion as valid, there's no rule that causing (unjustified) suffering is morally bad, and I can't imagine where that rule would come from, as even God wouldn't really suffice I don't think.
I must say again, that this particular line of conversation is getting quite repetitive, and I think it must end here. This will probably be my last post right here, unless you make some amazing argument so cheerio! (I'll still continue our other conversation concerning moral result and intent up above, if it warrants it)
"Just because consciousness is the only source of subjective meaning (that we can imagine), doesn't mean it has objective meaning. All sorts of things and events might mean a lot to conscious beings, but I don't see how that becomes objective meaning."
I'm talking here about consciousness itself (noun), the source of all meaning. If creating meaning isn't objectively meaningful (paradox) then nothing is. It follows then, that consciousness itself (noun) is objectively meaningful.
"I can see why a bad effect, like suffering, has objective meaning as well, but, we are missing the step of whether it is actually a bad effect."
In my estimation it's easy to logically deduce
1 - conscious experience has meaning
2 - suffering has negative meaning
3 - negative meaning is negative
Therefore:
4 - causing suffering is bad
I differentiated times when suffering is necessary or helpful. As such, given that we know suffering without good purpose is bad, causing suffering without a good purpose is bad. Unless you hold that unhelpful, unnecessary negative experience is positive or neutral?
"Sure, the conscious entities will generally agree that suffering is bad, but there's no reason to accept that conclusion as valid"
If using both observation and logic is insufficient to prove a point then what is sufficient? I can appreciate that one should doubt everything but simply asserting something might be wrong when all evidence points in the opposite direction isn't really a counterpoint.
"there's no rule that causing (unjustified) suffering is morally bad, and I can't imagine where that rule would come from, as even God wouldn't really suffice I don't think."
There's also no rule that masses attract one another, yet it remains true all the same.
When you speak of moral intent, what is the moral outcome that the actor is trying to achieve? I would argue that it's always a net positive effect on present and future conscious entities.
I don't see how creating meaning (which only means something to us, and is based on personal feelings and tastes - subjective) must be objectively meaningful (not influenced by personal feelings/tastes).
Suffering has negative subjective meaning - it's just our tastes that make us say it's got negative meaning, therefore it's subjective. That results in suffering being subjectively bad, not necessarily objectively bad.
"If using both observation and logic is insufficient to prove a point then what is sufficient?"
I hope I was logical in what I just said up above.
"There's also no rule that masses attract one another, yet it remains true all the same."
Newton's law of universal gravitation, I think I get your point though, but a rule like this doesn't have to be explicitly stated,it just has to be verifiable I would think. Sure you can measure the net +ve or -ve effect on entities, but surely you can't verify whether a net +ve/-ve effect is good or not.
"I don't see how creating meaning (which only means something to us, and is based on personal feelings and tastes - subjective) must be objectively meaningful (not influenced by personal feelings/tastes)."
It's paradoxical to say that the creation of meaning isn't objectively meaningful.
"Suffering has negative subjective meaning - it's just our tastes that make us say it's got negative meaning, therefore it's subjective. That results in suffering being subjectively bad, not necessarily objectively bad. "
The fact that all conscious entities interpret suffering as negative demonstrates that it is indeed negative. Just like the fact that all masses attract one another demonstrates that masses attract one another. Now, I'm open to evidence to the contrary or some exception but both A priori and A posteriori knowledge support what I've put forth. For it to be subjective there would have to be some entity that enjoyed negative experience. While one might cite masochists as an example of this I would state that for them pain is a positive experience, not a negative one.
"Newton's law of universal gravitation, I think I get your point though, but a rule like this doesn't have to be explicitly stated,it just has to be verifiable I would think. Sure you can measure the net +ve or -ve effect on entities, but surely you can't verify whether a net +ve/-ve effect is good or not."
Before Newton codified the law masses still attracted one another, just like morality doesn't need to be codified to exist. Given that a positive effect is by definition a good thing (remember positive means good in this context), it's tautological to state that a positive effect is good.
"It's paradoxical to say that the creation of meaning isn't objectively meaningful."
That's what you said before, and that's what I was just arguing against. I argued that the meaning created is subjective, so the creation of that subjective meaning is only subjectively meaningful.
"The fact that all conscious entities interpret suffering as negative demonstrates that it is indeed negative."
And I said that it is subjectively negative, just because everyone agrees, doesn't make it objective. Masses attracting each other isn't a good enough analogy, as they have no emotions or tastes or opinions, or anything of the sort. We need something that has no tastes or emotions to decide whether negative net conscious experience is a morally bad thing to cause, and we don't have anything capable of doing that. I don't see why their would need to be an entity that enjoys negative experiences, it's still about opinions, and that makes it subjective.
"remember positive means good in this context"
Positive means good to the individual in this context, not necessarily morally good, otherwise you'd be assuming that your original statements were true.
Moral goodness is still only the individual's taste, perhaps it was wrong of me to say that a positive effect isn't necessarily 'good,' and should have said 'morally good'. How would you measure the moral goodness of a positive effect? It's not like measuring gravity.
"That's what you said before, and that's what I was just arguing against. I argued that the meaning created is subjective, so the creation of that subjective meaning is only subjectively meaningful."
Even if the meaning created was subjective, the act of creation of meaning itself is tautologically objectively meaningful. I do however disagree with the assertion that the significance of conscious experience is subjective. I appreciate that consciousnesses can view things differently (subjectively), this is not what I dispute. What I put forth is that the conscious experience itself is objectively meaningful, in addition to it's positive and negative valence being objectively significant.
"And I said that it is subjectively negative, just because everyone agrees, doesn't make it objective. Masses attracting each other isn't a good enough analogy, as they have no emotions or tastes or opinions, or anything of the sort. We need something that has no tastes or emotions to decide whether negative net conscious experience is a morally bad thing to cause, and we don't have anything capable of doing that. I don't see why their would need to be an entity that enjoys negative experiences, it's still about opinions, and that makes it subjective."
Conscious entities will of course have different views on what entails a positive or negative experience. Some of them like the rain and some enjoy eating under-cooked meat, while others despise the rain and others feel ill at even the thought of ingesting such meat. However, it is a fact that their experience can be positive or negative for them. This is objectively factual. Positive by definition is good as in pleasant, negative by definition is bad as in unpleasant. The subjective element is what the entity perceives as positive, however their experience of the valence of the experience is objectively factual. We know that conscious entities enjoy good experiences and dislike bad experiences. As such, if we desire to be "good" to a conscious entity we should give it pleasant experiences. Since conscious experience (and consciousness itself) are the only known phenomena in reality to have intrinsic significance, affecting conscious entities in a positive way is the only manner in which one can have a positive impact on reality. What is morality if not what I have described? How is moral intent possible if moral outcome is not? What are morally intentioned actors attempting to do when they act in a morally intentioned manner?
"Positive means good to the individual in this context, not necessarily morally good, otherwise you'd be assuming that your original statements were true.
Moral goodness is still only the individual's taste, perhaps it was wrong of me to say that a positive effect isn't necessarily 'good,' and should have said 'morally good'."
It's important to note that morality (in terms of result) was actually conceptualized to describe actions which cause net negative and positive effects to conscious entities. If you think another phenomenon was/is being described by the concept, please clarify. I'm certain, however, that my above explanation shows how such effects are moral/immoral without resorting to the fact that morality itself was conceptualized to describe such effects.
"How would you measure the moral goodness of a positive effect? It's not like measuring gravity."
We already talked about measurement in a post above. I will paste it again, since at the time you accepted it as making "perfect sense".
WinstonC: "In terms of our ability to measure such outcomes, if we had complete information (and the ability to process it all) we would be able to do so with complete accuracy. As it stands, however, we can still get pretty accurate in our measurement, especially in simpler situations. To quote my post to Dermot on this point of measurement:
WinstonC: We aren't always able to gauge the objective morality of an act. We can, however, through using our social awareness, empathy and other skills, get a good idea of the effect our actions have on others. For example, when one strokes a cat and it purrs, the purring is indicative of it having a positive conscious experience. When one gives a starving child food and they scoff it up in front of you, then beam up at you and hug you in gratitude it is clear one has gifted the child a positive experience. In addition, we can utilize our ability to empathize and put ourselves in other people's shoes. We know we would like to be given food if we were starving and so we can estimate that by giving a starving person food we are doing a good thing.
Interestingly when a non-psychopathic, non-autistic individual watches another, they vicariously experience what the other is experiencing (source 1). This is why watching somebody step on a nail is so horrible and why watching TV shows and pornography is so enjoyable. As such, we do have an in-built means of gauging the effect of our actions on others, because we vicariously experience what any person or animal we are observing experiences.
"Everything you said after quoting me on "especially since I don't think it can be measured?" makes perfect sense, but only if the above definition of morality is correct."
I'll skip straight to here, and try to re-explain my position:
"It's important to note that morality (in terms of result) was actually conceptualized to describe actions which cause net negative and positive effects to conscious entities. If you think another phenomenon was/is being described by the concept, please clarify. I'm certain, however, that my above explanation shows how such effects are moral/immoral without resorting to the fact that morality itself was conceptualized to describe such effects."
Perhaps we are talking about different phenomena. You say morality "was actually conceptualized to describe actions which cause net negative and positive effects to conscious entities." When I talk about (objective) morality, I'm not talking about something that can be conceptualized. When I say morality, I'm talking about an 'ought' which is greater than us - for objectively morally good or bad actions to exist, I think it would require some sort of behavioral obligation, a duty, which doesn't just come from us. Objective morality would require a reason that we shouldn't cause a net negative experience to conscious entities. I need a reason for why we are obliged to try to cause a net positive experience to conscious entities, saying that life has objective value might help you, but as I said, I doubt that id does have objective value. Life is only of value to life, that makes it only subjectively valuable - the universe doesn't care.
There would need to be some way to tell what we should do, but there's no source of 'rules' or anything like that to be found that is of any authority, so moral obligations to act certain ways can't exist beyond us.
They could exist within us, as I mentioned with that 'moral intent' sort of theory earlier, but certain actions wouldn't be intrinsically bad, we wouldn't be obliged not to murder people, only to do what we think is right.
I kind of rushed this answer, and it might be a bit confusing, feel free to ask for clarification.
You've definitely made me think about my position, but I also feel like we're both just repeating ourselves now, and this conversation is becoming just a bit tedious and I don't think either of us are going to be persuaded along this current path. Don't be offended if I don't reply to your next post here. :)
"Perhaps we are talking about different phenomena. You say morality "was actually conceptualized to describe actions which cause net negative and positive effects to conscious entities."
This is true, morality didn't come from a God or similar, it came from humans thinking about how one ought to act to have the best result for themselves and others.
"When I say morality, I'm talking about an 'ought' which is greater than us - for objectively morally good or bad actions to exist, I think it would require some sort of behavioral obligation, a duty, which doesn't just come from us."
One does have a duty to be good to others. We know, after all, how things are in a state of chaos: murder, rape, exploitation, slavery and theft dominate. People would live horrific lives of fear and suffering. As aforementioned one's negative experience is objectively negative in valence and we have a responsibility therefore to reduce suffering and increase pleasure to the best of our ability. This is especially true given that consciousness and conscious experiences are the only things with objective meaning and significance. One simply cannot give one's life purpose in any other way than devoting their life to a net positive impact on conscious entities. In this manner it is rewarding to oneself to act morally also.
"Objective morality would require a reason that we shouldn't cause a net negative experience to conscious entities. I need a reason for why we are obliged to try to cause a net positive experience to conscious entities, saying that life has objective value might help you, but as I said, I doubt that id does have objective value. Life is only of value to life, that makes it only subjectively valuable - the universe doesn't care."
I've extensively explained at this point that the only manner in which one can have a positive impact on reality is through positively affecting conscious entities. It's also been outlined that conscious experience and it's valence has objective significance and meaning. Further, the consequences of a world where everyone behaved immorally has been detailed. Adding the value of life into the debate isn't really helpful as what gives life value, in my estimation, is consciousness (perhaps also free will).
If you really think that having a positive impact on reality and having a negative impact on reality are the same then I'd suggest being consistent and avoiding pleasure and seeking suffering. After all, if there isn't a significant distinction for others then why should there be for you? If there is a significant distinction between positive and negative experience for you then you should understand why it matters for others too. Conscious experience, after all, has an objective positive or negative valence.
"There would need to be some way to tell what we should do, but there's no source of 'rules' or anything like that to be found that is of any authority, so moral obligations to act certain ways can't exist beyond us. "
A source of rules that is of authority? Why do we need such things when we have our abilities to observe and reason? When I learned both the appearance of the color blue and the fact that the thing above us is the sky, I learned that the sky appears blue in daytime. I didn't need to consult some ancient book or whatever would qualify as a relevant authority.
"They could exist within us, as I mentioned with that 'moral intent' sort of theory earlier, but certain actions wouldn't be intrinsically bad, we wouldn't be obliged not to murder people, only to do what we think is right. "
I asked this question twice before to no reply but what is a morally intentioned actor attempting to do when they act with moral intent? What is the difference between doing what one wants and a morally intentioned act? Finally how is moral intent possible if moral outcome doesn't exist? Without compelling answers to these questions it would appear that what you characterize as moral intent is simply acting as one desires.
I don't see how we have a duty to reduce suffering and prevent things from falling into chaos ... why should we try to have a positive effect on reality?
"A source of rules that is of authority? Why do we need such things when we have our abilities to observe and reason?"
Okay, fair enough. We don't need a source of authority, but we do need a rational reason for why we should aim to have a positive effect on reality. (Actually I might also argue that logic itself is a source of authority, and that's how you know the sky is blue, I just don't think logic can tell us what we should do without basing it on emotions, which would be subjective still)
"I asked this question twice before to no reply but what is a morally intentioned actor attempting to do when they act with moral intent? What is the difference between doing what one wants and a morally intentioned act? Finally how is moral intent possible if moral outcome doesn't exist?"
Sorry if I failed to answer all your points before. I'll try now:
The morally intentioned actor is intending to do what they think is right. I'm not entirely clear on how to answer that question outside of what I just said.
I suppose whatever you do is kind of what you want, to the extent that you had a choice (ignoring the whole free will debate here), so a morally intentioned act is always a want as well in that respect, but doing what you want isn't necessarily a morally intentioned act. E.g, If I want to eat a cookie and I do, I'm doing what I want, but it's not a morally intentioned act in any way, I wasn't thinking about morality when I did it. You can also do what you want and still think it's morally wrong to do that.
Moral intent is possible because we tend to believe certain actions to be right and wrong, that's has no bearing on whether things actually are right or wrong objectively. There would still be subjectively right or wrong outcomes of course, but not necessarily objectively.
"I don't see how we have a duty to reduce suffering and prevent things from falling into chaos ... why should we try to have a positive effect on reality?"
We have a duty to other present and future conscious entities (as well as ourselves). The humans of the past overcame immense struggles to make our lives as pleasant as they are today. This is a priceless gift we can only repay by doing the same for the next generation.
A positive effect on reality is by definition a good thing. Why would we wish to have a neutral or negative effect? It seems irrational to me to wish to have a negative effect on reality, though this is generally caused by resentment of existence which in turn is caused by overexposure to suffering. One might wish to have a neutral effect on reality, though I'm unsure how common this is. In this case, one would be having no effect on reality, not driving our progress and not leaving an invisible legacy for future entities through ones effect on reality.
"I just don't think logic can tell us what we should do without basing it on emotions, which would be subjective still"
One has three choices. Firstly one can have a positive impact, watching the fruits of their good deeds grow around them and leaving one's mark on reality in a good way that future generations can benefit from. Secondly one can have a negative impact, enjoying the suffering one sees inflicted on those around them and leaving an invisible legacy of suffering that inflicts itself on present and future people one will never know or meet. Lastly one can have a neutral impact on reality, and it will be as if one never existed. In my estimation (and experience) the positive first path is most rewarding, both for oneself and others.
In addition, we are aware that conscious experience has an objective valence. Since we know that positive experience is pleasant and negative experience is unpleasant, we ought to try to produce pleasure and reduce suffering. There isn't really any other goal to life than this. One might focus on merely their own experiences, but they are missing a wealth of meaning and significance that they could give their life by focusing not just on their own experience but that of others too.
"The morally intentioned actor is intending to do what they think is right."
Does intending to do what's right have any significance if right doesn't objectively exist?
"Moral intent is possible because we tend to believe certain actions to be right and wrong, that's has no bearing on whether things actually are right or wrong objectively."
It seems to me that when making an assessment of what is right and wrong people use the criteria which I have put forth unless their assessment is simply Deus Vult: God wills it.
It's interesting that when we teach children about morality it's enough to state "you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you". For me this is sufficient to motivate moral action but I'm curious why for some it isn't. Sure, to me my experience may be more important than others but I'm aware that the same is true for others and that objectively both experiences in and of themselves have the same importance. I don't understand what logical rationale could cause oneself to devalue the experience of others unless one was simply being selfish.
This is close enough, in principle to something I would have posted. I have argued this position on this site multiple times, and I find that it is more complex than it appears when stated the way you have.
I contend that our sense of morality has evolved. Just as any surviving feature, it evolved and persisted because it is beneficial. As such, any code or sense of morality that is detrimental, does not serve the purpose for which morality evolved, and is morally incorrect. Just as eyes that don't see well are not good eyes, moral codes that are detrimental are not good moral codes, objectively speaking.
I hear echoes of Sam Harris in your position. He uses health as an analogy, and I find this very useful in debate.
"I contend that our sense of morality has evolved. Just as any surviving feature, it evolved and persisted because it is beneficial. As such, any code or sense of morality that is detrimental, does not serve the purpose for which morality evolved, and is morally incorrect. Just as eyes that don't see well are not good eyes, moral codes that are detrimental are not good moral codes, objectively speaking. "
The thing I'd note about this is that evolutionarily speaking our moral code would only make sense to apply to our own family and tribe. Holding one's species well being as a whole as important when another tribe comes to kill your tribe could be counterproductive. All the evolutionary forcings would seem to push for tribal favor, though I suppose we still have this, particularly considering political parties as tribes. In addition, sufficient time has not passed to select exclusively for tribal favor over species favor. I do appreciate that the whole human race has genetic similarity though and therefore the safeguard of the species makes evolutionary sense. Of course strangely people seem to apply morality even to animal welfare which is an interesting diversion. Perhaps this stems from our past of utilizing animal husbandry for our survival.
"I hear echoes of Sam Harris in your position. He uses health as an analogy, and I find this very useful in debate."
I've had Sam Harris' work in my to listen/watch/read list for a long time but keep putting it off since I listen to a lot of center-left atheists already. I'll make sure to give him a listen soon.
While evolution would have pushed a small group focus for morality, evolution has also pushed a relatively high intellect. Our moral sense has expanded to strangers (ultimately to humanity) as an outcome of our intellect (necessitated, I expect, by the significant positive impact of trade). We can feel greater affinity and moral duty to our family and neighbors than for those in the next municipality over. But we know we are better off when not at war, whether we want them dead or not.
This intellectual expansion of morality becomes shakier as we deal with larger populations, as evolutionary tribalism is hard to shake. So we still have wars.
Let's get one thing crystal clear, you can oppose absolutism without going to the other extreme of moral nihilism. Just because you object to black and white, good and evil, my way or the highway analysis of every topic doesn't mean you're loosey goosey anything goes nothing is immoral. That's a bunch of crap. In fact that's just a slippery slope scare tactic used most often by the absolutists to scare or object to anyone who tells them to chill out a little.