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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Objective Moral Values and Evolution
If it is true that evolution is a blind process, then how can you trust your moral intuitions? If the psychological supervenes on the physical, and morality does not always lead to the greatest chance of survival, while immorality, on the other hand, does (e.g. genocide based in eugenics), then is it not highly implausible that our psychological realm, having our moral intuitions, aligned so closely with the objective moral realm?
Or, are there no objective moral values? Or was evolution not blind, guided by a God?
Surely not that there are no objective moral values, lest murder have no meaning.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that humans know what is objectively moral, which is not necessarily true. Nor does it need to be true of an objective morality to exist. It can be the case that evolution is true, morality is objective, and there is no God.
Murder is wrong by definition, regardless of the context of this debate.
"That's true. But, what justification does one have for saying that objective morals exist, when we have no understanding of what is objectively moral? If we have hooked onto some aspect of objective morality, then it is highly implausible that we were able to hook onto the moral realm without guidance from God, as evolution is a blind process."
I was wondering if someone was going to be smart enough to respond with this rebuttal. You did well.
But, that still raises the question: if we have some inkling of morality, then we it is still highly implausible that we got it, by evolution, a blind process, while, if we do not have objective morality, in what sense are we justified in believing that there is, as we have no understanding of it?
Ehh, not really. Even if you did "justification" is subjective. Most people who do--in the general population's eyes--unjustifiable killings justify there actions themselves. This is why it is subjective, it is up to whomever to decide why is justified and what is not- mainly a judger or authoritative figure.
"Justifiable" is always in the context of a certain principle. The principles that we adopt for our justice system are not chosen on a whim. Their not based on some guys random opinion. They are based based on human interaction that maximizes the utility of each while minimizing the harm. People don't think in depth about these things, but they still have a fuzzy notion of right and wrong. It's based on the same idea of utility and harm reduction.
A person can rationalize all day, but that doesn't make them rational. You are using "justify" in the same way as "rationalize". A person can choose a unreasonable contexts in which to consider their own actions, but it doesn't make them just or reasonable. Having a skewed subjective view of a topic doesn't make the topic itself subjective.
If it is true that evolution is a blind process, then how can you trust your moral intuitions?
You probably shouldn't. Morality should have reasons and make sense. So you shouldn't really trust them blindly. That said, if you did and do not have certain disorders, it could prove safe.
Just because evolution is blind, that does not mean it is random (using the definition of "all possibilities have and equal odds of occurring" ). Rather, evolution allows for us to develop tools that make the blindness irrelevant. If we did evolve morals, they either serve us or fail to hinder us. You can trust them the way you trust your thumbs.
If the psychological supervenes on the physical, and morality does not always lead to the greatest chance of survival, while immorality, on the other hand, does (e.g. genocide based in eugenics)
This assessment is erroneous. It implies that evolution works with individuals, but instead it works with populations. And in this global society we now find ourselves, it may be focusing on the species as a whole. In that light genocide, is far from beneficial.
As far as morality not always leading to greatest chance of survival...it generally DOES as long as all parties are on the same page. This is precisely why societies have always imprisoned, killed or banished those who will not play the moral game.
then is it not highly implausible that our psychological realm, having our moral intuitions, aligned so closely with the objective moral realm?
They aren't two different things though. This argument would not likely work on someone who believes morals were evolved.
Or, are there no objective moral values?
Yes and no. There is a general overall framework, outlined in detail in my reference link below. But different people experience these pulls of morality in different ways and at different strengths. This arguably carries an undercurrent of subjectivity.
Personally, I find morality to have elements of both, though if forced into the false dichotomy, I would choose subjective.
Or was evolution not blind, guided by a God?
Nothing about evolution has to have changed for morals to evolve.
lest murder have no meaning.
So this would somehow remove our sense of loss when someone kills our loved ones? Or our sense of empathy to know how dark that can feel without having to directly experience it?
Murder is simply any killing that is deemed 'illegal' (and of a human but that's not so important right now) thus it is only subjectively wrong, to whatever body is governing.
You said (paraphrasing you) that it is odd to trust evolution when it is blind, how I ask you personally if you also think it is odd to follow blind faith?
Murder is simply any killing that is deemed 'illegal' (and of a human but that's not so important right now) thus it is only subjectively wrong, to whatever body is governing.
So, if I tortured all children on earth and then killed them all, unjustly, would you say that I had merely done what was my preference and that I did not do what was wrong?
You said (paraphrasing you) that it is odd to trust evolution when it is blind, how I ask you personally if you also think it is odd to follow blind faith?
I never said that it is odd to trust evolution when it is blind. You don't trust evolution in any capacity, except to get to what is most conducive to survival. I said, on the other hand, that evolution is a blind process that has no direction.
So, it is simply irrelevant to ask about blind faith.
But, even if it is not irrelevant, I would not say that it is odd to follow blind faith at all. By definition of what faith is, it very easily could be construed, by definition, as being something that is followed with blindness. Yet, I don't believe Christianity in any way is blind faith. There were numerous early church fathers who believed the Bible, the apostles, etc. We trust the Bible, the early church, and Jesus, as we believe the historical stories that Jesus performed miracles, died on the cross and rose again. You might disagree with the notion that the stories are trustworthy, but that in no way makes the faith blind. It simply makes it a faith, just as we have faith that our scientists are honest in their endeavors. So, I don't really see your point to have any real, substantial meaning. And if it did, it has been answered.
I'd simply say what you did was in my opinion wrong. You seem to have your mind clouded with the idea that right and wrong are objective, when in actuality they are not. Do you think an ant would think it's right that you stepped on it? How about a cow thinking it's right that you hold it in a cage from the moment it's born, then killing it one random day never letting it get an exercise? The answer is no it wouldn't yet stepping on ants is legal, and so is veal, because to humanity these are easily forgotten acts, and thus subjectively are not wrong.
I'll skip straight ahead to your why you don't consider Christianity to be blind.
You say that what you're reading is and hearing from your pastor is simply history, but I say that even if it is (even though it seems highly unlikely that history would be magical while the present is not) even if it is history, it's stories being passed down from older generations that could have been altered and you can't deny that, and it's all without evidence to top it off. Making the faith in fact very blind. You're blindly trusting that your pastor isn't lying, or blindly trusting that what your pastor is saying is exactly what happened, as if he were there, because he blindly trusted that his pastor and so on told the right story from the time.
I'd simply say what you did was in my opinion wrong. You seem to have your mind clouded with the idea that right and wrong are objective, when in actuality they are not. Do you think an ant would think it's right that you stepped on it? How about a cow thinking it's right that you hold it in a cage from the moment it's born, then killing it one random day never letting it get an exercise? The answer is no it wouldn't yet stepping on ants is legal, and so is veal, because to humanity these are easily forgotten acts, and thus subjectively are not wrong.
So, there are no morals and Hitler did not do wrong. That is the logical conclusion of atheism, so its logical consistent. But, do you really, honestly, believe that objective moral values do not exist? If I were to ask, "Can I kill you, permissibly?", the immediate reaction of the vast majority of people would be, "No! You cannot simply kill me." When pressed, people would say, "Because its wrong!" You say that you cannot see how anyone honestly would believe what I believe, yet you're sitting here doing the same thing. Would you honestly say that killing you is not wrong? Okay... Thats strange, but consistent.
You say that what you're reading is and hearing from your pastor is simply history, but I say that even if it is (even though it seems highly unlikely that history would be magical while the present is not) even if it is history, it's stories being passed down from older generations that could have been altered and you can't deny that, and it's all without evidence to top it off. Making the faith in fact very blind. You're blindly trusting that your pastor isn't lying, or blindly trusting that what your pastor is saying is exactly what happened, as if he were there, because he blindly trusted that his pastor and so on told the right story from the time.
Everything could have been altered. Who says theres no evidence for it? The history is the evidence. Your skepticism is non-self-referential. You are forgetting to include everything that you have been told. How do you know that the evidence for evolution is in any way true? It could have been altered. Its a denial of Occams Razor to try to account for everything. We cannot account for everything, and from that we take Occams Razor for practical usage. Thus, when applying Occam's Razor, we see the historical accounts of Jesus from people in the early church, including parts of the Bible. and in the time period, though outside of the church, and we conclude from that. Thats not blind faith. What you're edging on would lead to an infinite regress; we have to have presuppositions to base everything off of that. The presupposes are blind for everyone. So, I don't see your point.
There are no morals, Hitler didn't do anything wrong. Not objectively. That is what I'm saying. Any wrong doings in this world, are only wrong to those who feel it is wrong, but to anyone who doesn't feel it is wrong, it won't be wrong, right and wrong are opinions, what part of that don't you get?
If you asked can you kill me, I'd say not not because it's wrong (even though that'd be my opinion vs yours) I'd say no because I don't want to die. My not wanting to die, has nothing to do with morals, and everything to do with my general enjoyment of living.
As for your question is killing me wrong. The answer is a big fat no! Not objectively. If me and you are the only people alive, and you kill me and you justify it for whatever reason. it's simply your living opinion, vs my dead, non existent one, making yours right.
Past this, into the second paragraph we get into what is, and "i believe because etc" I'm opting out of that portion of the argument now, because that argument never goes any where with the religious. hate to use a cop out like this, but nothing you can say will convince me the stories are definitely true, and nothing I can say will convince you that they might not be true, so it's a pointless endeavor.
Note: I'm not disputing you because I'm asking an unbiased, unloaded question to gather information, not to trap you in some fallacy or whatever reason people dispute with questions. In short, that question has no pretense, it simply is asking what is implies. Why is it radically wrong?
I expect a clarification as an answer since in answering my question you would not be agreeing or disagreeing with me, since I am not making any claims.
As philosophers have noted, we all have a sense of torturing a child to be wrong. Other philosophers even say that morality breaks down, and is no longer a concept, if they are not objective. So, if there is any sense of morality, which the vast majority of people believe, then objective moral values exist. We all intuitively understand morality; it takes a stubborn heart to not believe that.
As philosophers have noted, we all have a sense of torturing a child to be wrong.
Would that not equally apply to the christian god, in sending his son to be tortured to death? You can say that the Romans are at fault here, but they themselves represents gods creations, and those actions were carrying out the gods plan. Absolving the christian god of responsibility for this is equivalent to absolving a dictator of responsibility for the atrocities committed in accordance with his plans, by his underlings.
It should be noted here that morals from a god do not represent objective morals. Truly objective morals would be equally applicable to gods and men alike. No, morals that come from god represent the subjective moral viewpoint of the god in question. This is an important distinction, and is the reason why it is considered morally acceptable for god to kill children (or simply let them die of neglect), but not acceptable for men to do the same.
One can concede that nobody has the ability to hold a god accountable for anything, and that a god has an infinite ability to hold others accountable for anything, but that does not render the morals in question objective by any stretch.
Objective morals don't exist- even if you believe in a god or gods.
This is progress. In clarifying I'm sure you read my argument (a feat most trolls do not seem to be capable of), in reading my argument I feel you to be less of a troll, and I feel you more to be just misinformed or differently opinionated.
Now what you say is that if a vast majority of a group believe in a specific moral frame work that it is that moral frame work, that is objective. Well it is here that we must stop arguing because it will ultimately boil down to me saying I don't agree, and you saying you don't agree, but before I opt out, I'll at least tell you why I don't agree.
If the majority but not the entirety of people agree with something, this proves to my sense of logic and reasoning that the majority of the people has one opinion on this subject while some, if even the smallest inkling but some none the less, don't agree, then it is opinion vs opinion, which is the definition of subjectivity.
I'll read what you type back, but I most likely will not reply, I however ask this of you. Are you saying that the majority is right, no matter what? That is what it seems like to me.
Now what you say is that if a vast majority of a group believe in a specific moral frame work that it is that moral frame work, that is objective.
I never said that. I'm simply saying that the vast majority of people believe in objective morality. This does not mean that people cannot be mistaken.
Ah okay. That is great to know, and it also clears up negative opinions of you I could have had in the future off of incorrect assumptions that you believe the majority is always right.
For what it's worth this was not a bad argument we had.
Of course survival of the fittest does not give rise to morality. In fact morality often hinders survival. This doesn't mean there is a God but rather that morals came about by something other than evolution.
To me your argument is like say "this tree is rotting. Evolution doesn't explain that. There is a God."
There are no 'objective' morals, especially in the case of murder. Humans are not objected to the idea of no killing. Say you were protecting your offspring from an attacker, for instance, and the only way to do so would be to critically harm that attacker. And this critical harm caused said attacker to die. This would be classified as murder- so to say murder is objectively wrong would mean that failing to save your offspring (which is instinctual) from said attacker would have been objectively right if you had the opportunity to kill the attacker but chose not to. Now you have dead offspring and an irrelevant to your life attacker/killer in stable condition..
But, nevertheless, I agree with the logical conclusion that non-theism leads to an inability to account for objective morals. Therefore, if there is no God(s), then we cannot honestly say that murder is wrong, outside of mere socio-biological impulses or preference of action.
In the example I use it is. I also did not specify a location where the killing happens. Murder means an 'unlawful' killing, and 'lawful' implicates a location with laws- and some places deem any form/reason of a human killing another human being unlawful, thus defines murder.
The fact that there would be no objective morality if evolution were true is not proof that evolution is false. No objective morality is simply a result if evolution were true.
Did I say evolution is false? The argument is not that evolution would be false. The argument is that evolution would lead us to the conclusion that there is a God, if objective moral values are existent.
Objective morality could be simultaneously true with the process of evolution if humans are not entirely aware of what is objectively moral. This does not require the existence of God.
That's true. But, what justification does one have for saying that objective morals exist, when we have no understanding of what is objectively moral? If we have hooked onto some aspect of objective morality, then it is highly implausible that we were able to hook onto the moral realm without guidance from God, as evolution is a blind process.
My point doesn't require that there is "no understanding". It can be the case that we grasp some aspects of morality and miss others. If we are living in a world where our current existence derived from an evolutionary process, it is entirely plausible that we understand some aspect of the moral realm. The extent to which an objective morality is yet unknown would be the extent to which we are still evolving.
"Grasping" concepts is in our nature. The argument for evolution would hold that our ability to understand has evolved. The extent of our understanding it the extent of that aspect of our evolution. Further understanding may be currently beyond our grasp with the blind process of evolution bringing us always to greater understanding. This can work with the idea of God in mind, but it does not require it.
The problem still runs, but is made deeper. You're, what appears to me, looking at things in hindsight: we have moral intuitions, and we have understanding, so we just got understanding and moral intuitions from evolution, though it just so happened to happen. The problem with this is obvious: from a starting point, evolution does not have an end. Its only end is survival. It is, thusly implausible to say that we would get understanding, let alone understand or have moral intuitions about morality. I never said that this is a necessary argument; it can easily be imagined that God is not required here, in a possible world. The issue is plausibility: a blind evolutionary process that makes us believe genocide is wrong, when genocide is conducive to survival? In what way is this reason giving?
The issue is plausibility: a blind evolutionary process that makes us believe genocide is wrong, when genocide is conducive to survival? In what way is this reason giving?
All that is required is that at some point animals were able to work together and that animals which cooperated had a better chance of survival.
Social behavior favors an understanding how others will perceive an action (the precursors to, and later, empathy)
Many animals take action congruent with our version of morals: altruism, compassion, mourning, fairness, justice, etc.
Evolution better explains our dual drives of tribal cooperation and competition better than a morality derived from Matthew 5:38-44 & Matthew 6:25-27
are there no objective moral values?
correct. Just subjective moral values with varying levels of agreement from controversial to widely accepted.
lest murder have no meaning
It basically already doesn't.
Is suicide wrong? mercy killing? the death penalty? war (killing Osama bin Laden)? self-defense? killing animals for meat? etc. etc.
a blind evolutionary process that makes us believe genocide is wrong, when genocide is conducive to survival?
Either genocide is not objectively wrong and we don't know it, or genocide is not conducive to survival. I would suggest the later. How many great minds, that Hitler might have otherwise commanded, simply went up in smoke?
You're... looking at things in hindsight
All evidence is gathered in hindsight.
Its only end is survival
If evolution brings a sense of morality, then morality must be conducive to survival. If we have a moral sense that is not conducive to survival, then we will evolve past it or die out. This is plausible. We are now better at survival than we once were.
My main issue with this debate is the false dichotomy of the opposing positions.
Either genocide is not objectively wrong and we don't know it, or genocide is not conducive to survival. I would suggest the later. How many great minds, that Hitler might have otherwise commanded, simply went up in smoke?
You can easily consider genocide that does not kill intellectual people. Genocide of all mentally retarded, children, elderly, disabled, etc. would still be considered wrong. Genocide is very much so conducive to survival, if based in some aspect of eugenics. Thus, genocide is conducive to survival, and the genocide is not wrong. If this is the case, then it raises the question: how did we get a belief that genocide is wrong?
And if genocide is not wrong, then we can list off numerous other things that we know to be morally wrong that have survival conducive elements: rape, theft, etc. You have the burden of proof to find something that is morally wrong, if you are going to challenge the objective moral notion of genocide, rape, and theft, as those, if anything, are the obvious cases of objective morality.
All evidence is gathered in hindsight.
That is begging the question. When doing inductive reasoning, maybe through history or science, you cannot look at things in hindsight to prove what is plausible. Hindsight only proves what is factually correct. Thus, your argument begs the question. You must look at things from a set forth notion, at the beginning of evolution: how implausible gathering objective moral understanding or moral intuitions would be, if undirected.
If evolution brings a sense of morality, then morality must be conducive to survival. If we have a moral sense that is not conducive to survival, then we will evolve past it or die out. This is plausible. We are now better at survival than we once were.
This begs the question. We know that there are things that are conducive to survival: rape, for one.
All in all, your argument begs the question by looking at things in hindsight and ignoring the implausibility notion.
You can easily consider genocide that does not kill intellectual people.
This is true, but your argument about genocide misses my earlier point. It may be that genocide is in fact moral, and we don't know it. Or it may be that it is immoral for reasons we don't understand. Perhaps the the existence of the type of person required to carry out genocide is not conducive to survival. Before you argue against this idea, remember that the point is that it could be immoral for reasons we don't understand. Perhaps for reasons we actually can't understand at this stage of the game.
All evidence is gathered in hindsight.
This was tongue in cheek. Morality is a type of code of conduct. Since we are lacking in instinct, we need a code of conduct to help us survive. Once we internalize this code and acquire and emotional attachment to it, we call it morality. An objective morality would then be whatever conduct is most conducive to our survival. Acknowledging that we do not actually know what is conduct is best does not require that someone somewhere (God) knows. The idea that we develop better practices and conduct over time does not require that someone has been teaching us.
This begs the question. We know that there are things that are conducive to survival: rape, for one.
Consider the success of a society that morally condemns and legally forbids rape when compared to a society that accepts it as proper conduct. The quality of your life is dependent on your ability survive well as opposed to poorly. The quality of life in a relatively moral society is much higher than in a barbaric one.
As far as begging the question:
Would it be better if I said "Objective morality is only plausible if there is a God because only God is plausible and nothing is plausible without God..."? Now that would beg the question.
What I am doing is showing you how plausible it is that evolution could bring an understanding of what is proper conduct or objectively moral. You response is simply that I am using hindsight and being implausible. It isn't sufficient.
There must be a supreme authority as the basis for objective morality. Otherwise what is to differentiate between an objective moral and subjective opinion? Whether that God is any specific God is not a necessary inference, it may just be "Anselm's God", that being which no greater can be conceived.
There must be a supreme authority as the basis for objective morality
Not so. A standard must exist for there to be an objective morality. The idea that there must be a supreme authority misses the point of objectivity. This is like defining objectivity as the subjective opinion of one person rather than any others.
For a thing to be objective it must be, regardless of opinion. This would include God.
The standard for evolution is survival. This isn't a subjective standard, it's emergent.
But evolution has nothing to do with morality. There is no objective standard set by it, so there is no objective morality aside from the existence of God.
To argue about this we would have to claim knowledge of a supreme being. You'll get no rebuttal from me.
No, it's a hypothetical. If there is a God, opinion would be inapplicable to him. "If there is a God, then there is no objective morality" is the original point in question, I think you are missing the point of the debate.
There are countless opinions on the nature of a hypothetical supreme being. Since there is no knowledge of one, and we can make up what we want, then there is no way to have a legitimate debate along these lines.
There are countless opinions on the nature of a hypothetical supreme being. Since there is no knowledge of one, and we can make up what we want, then there is no way to have a legitimate debate along these lines.
Our opinions of God do not define him. However many different opinions of God there are, the one that exists would be the the only constant, and therefore the only standard of objectivity. Our lack of knowledge on something doesn't define what it is. You are basing your argument upon humans subjective idea of God, not his actuality. If we do not know his actuality, we cant make up whatever we want (well we could but it wouldn't be true), we simply cannot know it.
But if, according to you, "there is no knowledge of one", what is there to follow by?
As if you have some kind of understanding of the one that exists.
That is my exact point. It doesn't matter what my or anyones understanding of the one that exists is. Regardless of what I understand or believe, on the premise that there is a supreme being, he and only he would be the standard for objectivity.
Anyway, you clearly out-reasoned me at every point as anyone reading will be able to see without question. Good win
Clearly, seeing as your only rebuttal is poorly used sarcasm.
That is an opinion about a supreme being. Do you see your contradiction?
On evolution and morality; there is plenty of research to support my position that morality has a neurological basis that evolved over time. (See, "The Moral Brain", a collection of essays)
If the evidence supports truth, and the standard of evolution is survival, then there can be an objective morality without the existence of God.
(EDIT: If this is the case, then this debate is a false dichotomy.)
It is not sufficient to simply say "morality isn't related to evolution...NEXT". Your unsupported statements lacked even a reason for you giving them. Your statements are far from self-evident. For this reason I wrote off this debate with you. But perhaps I was hasty. Maybe you would like to provide supporting arguments to your previously unsupported statements.
No, it is the definition of God itself, not my opinion. It's an inherent trait. With the existence of God, it is a direct inference that his "opinion" is the only objective thing in reality, because his "opinion" is what defines reality itself.
On evolution and morality; there is plenty of research to support my position that morality has a neurological basis that evolved over time.
If it evolved over time then there is nothing objective about it. There is no ultimate standard for morality. Evolution wouldn't not the standard, just the process by which we come to it (which we couldn't because there would be none). And just the fact that it would take a process in and of itself shows that it isn't objective morality. While "morals" may exist without a God, they certainly are not objective.
Your unsupported statements lacked even a reason for you giving them. Your statements are far from self-evident.
As did yours. I know you said that objective morality can exist without God, because this metaphysical phenomenon can somehow be explained through evolution, but you never actually said how. Maybe you could explain further?
No, it is the definition of God itself, not my opinion.
Perhaps you forgot about the view of God that holds his views subject to the nature of the universe. The idea that there are principles, such and yin and yang, that even God or the Gods must adhere to. Your idea of a supreme being is western-centric. Your opinion of God is based on an opinion of a definition of God. None of which can be substantiated definitionaly or otherwise because there is no knowledge of God.
If it evolved over time then there is nothing objective about it.
Evolution is a process with a standard that arises naturally out of the nature of reality. Survival is the standard of evolution. That standard is the reason for the development of a frontal lobe which which gave rise to symbolic thinking in a social environment. All of which is experienced as morality and was required for survival, which is the standard. A standard is all that is required for objectivity. There is no better standard than one that arises naturally out of the nature of reality.
this metaphysical phenomenon can somehow be explained through evolution
This is actually the common theory today. That is perhaps why I didn't feel the need to expound.
A rapidly changing environment required a weak creature to drop certain instincts which are not relevant in a changing context. This brought the development of the frontal lobe which aloud symbolic reasoning and thus social cohesion. Symbolic reasoning allows us to thing conceptually and replace instinct driven action with concept driven principles or "codes" of conduct. The internalization of these codes are necessary for them to be applied consistently. This internalization is when a code becomes a moral.
The standard of survival determines the objectivity of morality. Surviving "better" means increasing quality of life. The objective morality is that which best serves the standard of survival, which is the function of its evolutionary basis. This does not require God.
Regardless of all of this, it is still a false dichotomy to claim that; either God exists, or murder is not wrong.
Your idea of a supreme being is western-centric. Your opinion of God is based on an opinion of a definition of God.
But obviously, this is the God being talked about. If you are attempting to define God as otherwise that is an equivoque and you are only attacking a straw man argument.
All of which is experienced as morality and was required for survival, which is the standard. A standard is all that is required for objectivity.
An objective standard is required for objectivity. Firstly, evolution is not a moral standard, because morality is not an inherent inference of evolution. Also, how is objective if it has to gradually develop? And not only does it need to develop, but its development is subjective to those who experience it? That in itself goes against the definition of objective morality.
This is actually the common theory today.
"Theory", yet you state it as fact? And if you are trying to imply its accuracy by stating how common it is, that's just the fallacy ad populum.
This brought the development of the frontal lobe which aloud symbolic reasoning and thus social cohesion. Symbolic reasoning allows us to thing conceptually and replace instinct driven action with concept driven principles or "codes" of conduct. The internalization of these codes are necessary for them to be applied consistently. This internalization is when a code becomes a moral.
And this, in itself, goes against the very nature and definition of objective morality.
Objective: existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world.
According to you, not only does morality exist only in the mind, it is created by it. Your "morality" exists first in the mind, and is then applied to reality. The point of objectivity is that it must exist in the reality first, and then it is (or can be) perceived by the mind, because if its primary existence lies in the mind it is subjective to opinion or feelings. Your definition doesn't necessarily have morality subjective to each individual. With your definition, morality is subjective humans (or any other rational creature) when influenced by nature and society, but it is nonetheless subjective.
The standard of survival determines the objectivity of morality. Surviving "better" means increasing quality of life. The objective morality is that which best serves the standard of survival, which is the function of its evolutionary basis. This does not require God.
And again, this goes against the definition of objectivity.
Objective : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
Because we want to "survive better" and "increase our quality of life" morals developed in the mind as we evolved? Yes, your morality does not require God, but that is not true objective morality.
Regardless of all of this, it is still a false dichotomy to claim that; either God exists, or murder is not wrong.
You may want to reconsider your wording choice there. I don't know about "regardless of all of this", considering it is only a false dichotomy if your arguments are actually true.
There is no reason to believe that we are talking about a Judeo-Christian version of God. Further, one can conceive of a supreme being that has not created the universe in which it lives. To define God is to state an opinion about a subject which is beyond any knowledge.
evolution is not a moral standard
If you re-read what you quoted and responded to, you will see that I wasn't claiming evolution as the standard. Survival is the standard. Survival itself isn't gradually developed, only how we do it. Evolutionary forces caused the development of moral cognition.
is subjective to those who experience it
Pain is an objective property of a human being. It is experienced subjectively but exists as an objective property of human neural networks. Morality is more complex, and is experienced subjectively. This doesn't negate the existence of an objective morality.
An objective morality is that internalized conduct which is correct (serving its evolutionary function), regardless of ones subjective opinion.
"Theory", yet you state it as fact
Yes, theory. Like the theory of evolution. You can find a number of essays on this theory in "The Moral Brain: Essays on the Evolutionary and Neuroscientific Aspects of Morality". Basing my argument on the prevailing scientific theory is a position I am comfortable with. Arguing that it is no good because it isn't "fact" is a pretty weak position. Having scientific support does not qualify for the ad populum fallacy.
Objective: existing outside of the mind
I see you tailored which definition to use based on the particular argument. Lets stick with the original. Objective: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions. Pain exists regardless of how you feel about it. The fact that everyone feels it differently does not mean that it is not an objectively existing property of humanity. It exists in the mind, but that mind is emergent from the physically existing brain. There are properties of the human mind that we are not yet aware of. These properties exist objectively, and only in our mind.
Because we want to "survive better" and "increase our quality of life" morals developed in the mind as we evolved?
Taking action to maintain life is a property of living things. Human beings subjectively experience a want or desire. This is a subjective experience of an objective property. This naturally occurring pressure toward more efficient survival caused moral cognition to evolve. People didn't will it into their brain structure by wanting a whole lot.
it is only a false dichotomy if your arguments are actually true.
It would require a creator. Since you say 'unaware' then someone must become aware, and if, apparently, no one is aware then when someone does become aware then they would have to inform others- unless, of course, everyone becomes aware at the same time. You seem to speak of objective morality as if it is some sort of 'god'. As 'intelligent' as humans supposedly are I am sure we would be aware of an uncreated moral- and the problem with this is the entire construction of any form of morality was conceptually discover, created, a forced/taught to others. So to say 'become aware of objective morality' is similar to religious folk telling other to become aware of god- and morality--just like god/religion--is a belief system created by humans that you are suggesting exists in reality. Morality, by definition, will always be subjective. There is objective necessity and reason which some may not be aware but not 'morality'.
--
(1) Morality is defined as: A particular system of values and principles of conduct, esp.one held by a specified person or society; (2)"person or society" is basically saying that it is up to the person or society to decide; (3) and if such a system of principles of ideas is up for decision then it is subjective; (4) it is illogical to extract objectivity from something that (by definition) entirely entails subjectivity (5) therefore, one cannot become of aware of objective morality seeing as how the entire idea of 'morality' (again, by definition) entails subjectivity.
You'll need to be a little more clear about the whole beginning where you talk about aware and unaware. Maybe use some quotes. I don't know what you mean.
supposedly are I am sure we would be aware of an uncreated moral
There is no reason to suppose this.
So to say 'become aware of objective morality' is similar to religious folk telling other to become aware of god
It's not really the same. It's more like becoming aware of our evolutionary origins and what separates us from them.
There is objective necessity and reason
Then we are in agreement.
Morality is defined as: A particular system of values and principles of conduct
This is the definition. By focusing on the example that follows the "esp" you draw ideas that may be relevant to the example but not necessarily to the definition itself. Keep in mind that I am not arguing that people hold morality objectively. I am very aware that people have very subjective views. But the idea of an objective morality would be the moral code which best serves the purpose for which morality evolved in the first place; survival. Specifically, survival for a creature lacking in instincts.
It's not really the same. It's more like becoming aware of our evolutionary origins and what separates us from them.
(NOTE: I said similar.) What separates us from our evolutionary origins is our intelligence. I would not link 'morality' to 'intelligence' because there are plenty of animals with high levels of intelligence without morals.
Then we are in agreement.
Morality and necessity/reason are not the same. So if this is what you are implying then I would say we aren't really in agreement.
But the idea of an objective morality would be the moral code which best serves the purpose for which morality evolved in the first place; survival. Specifically, survival for a creature lacking in instincts.
The idea does not meat the definition. Survival does not necessitate morality- and the definition does not imply this either. We only use systems of morals for what some people view is a "better life" and 'right' and 'wrong', which is a subjective view(s)(hence "someone's view").
What separates us from our evolutionary origins is our intelligence.
What separates us is a lot more than intelligence. You might have said "there are plenty of relatively hairless creatures without morals". But your right, I shouldn't have linked hairlessness to morality.
A code of conduct becomes necessary (for survival) when there is a lack of instinct. As somewhat rational beings we are faced with countless alternatives and lack the automatic knowledge that other species have. Acting on impulse is fine when one has instincts to guide him. A general code of conduct becomes necessary when one does not.
Morality is the internalization of a code of conduct. This is what gives it it's subjective aspect. The objective aspect comes with the recognition that some conduct is objectively better/best for survival. Another way of saying "better life" is "better at surviving". A survival necessitates a code of conduct for humans. Morality is what humans do with a code of conduct.
While there are many forms of conduct adopted subjectively, there is some conduct that is objectively the most conducive to surviving best.
Acting on impulse is fine when one has instincts to guide him.
These very impulses, mostly, are instinctual. But humans try and 'mask' these instincts through the subjective COC aka "morality".
You can't say: "A code of conduct becomes necessary (for survival) when there is a lack of instinct," then say: "The objective aspect comes with the recognition that some conduct is objectively better/best for survival."
We have all the instincts we need for survival. So to say "necessary" is problematic. You also seem to make morality (the issue at hand) into a term that allows room for interpretation. You also seem to be redefining morality to fit your argument. Morality is centered around what's "right" and what's "wrong" in a behavioral sense. "Right" and "wrong" will always be subjectively asserted in a behavioral view (assuming no psychological deficiency and/or disability).
A survival necessitates a code of conduct for humans.
As I said before, early humans and our ancestors survived without the conception of morality -and some humans still do today. Therefore survival does not necessitate 'morality'.
Human instinct only tells us what we want to do. Animal instinct tells them "how" to do things. There is no automatic knowledge for us.
We have all the instincts we need for survival.
Clearly you have never been in a survival situation.
You can't say...
You'll have to explain why my two statements that you quoted are inconsistant.
You also seem to make morality (the issue at hand) into a term that allows room for interpretation.
Are you saying that morality is a term that is not open to interpretation?
You also seem to be redefining morality to fit your argument.
I haven't redefined, merely explained. Morality is a code of conduct which, once internalized, takes on emotional significance. People subjectively internalize a host of different codes, but that doesn't mean there is not best code.
Please explain how I have redefined morality. Also, please explain how it is not open to interpretation.
Right" and "wrong" will always be subjectively asserted in a behavioral view
All things experienced, are experienced subjectively. This doesn't mean that the thing being experienced only exists subjectively.
early humans and our ancestors survived without the conception of morality -and some humans still do today.*
I don't believe you can substantiate your claim about early humans. As for humans today; psychopaths lack the emotional connection to a code of conduct, but they still maintain certain standards of behavior. They maintain a code for rational purposes. They have a neurological condition that keeps them from emotionally connecting to a code, most people don't have this deficiency. Most people have a moral sense because its natural to a human being.
Human instinct only tells us what we want to do. Animal instinct tells them "how" to do things. There is no automatic knowledge for us.
Animal instinct does not tell them, necessarily, 'how'. For example, a lion cubs instinct tells them they want to hunt, and further, it tells them they want to learn to hunt. But it does not tell them 'how' to hunt, that is learned.
Clearly you have never been in a survival situation
We actually do, our instincts are masked by 'moral' codes. For instance, someone may have the impulse to kill someone for survival, but a moral code deeming killing being wrong may, in turn, cause that first someone to die because of it. It was that someone's instinct letting them know what they should do in order to survive, but it was morality telling them not to act on said instinct.
You'll have to explain why my two statements that you quoted are inconsistent
It appeared to me that you said objective morality was necessary for survival, then went on to explain how it was only necessary for 'better life quality'. The life quality I can understand (which would definitely make morality subjective), but the 'survival' profession I do not agree with, and it is also not true.
I haven't redefined, merely explained. Morality is a code of conduct which, once internalized, takes on emotional significance. People subjectively internalize a host of different codes, but that doesn't mean there is not best code.
What's 'best' for someone is purely subjective coming from another source. For instance, I may need to hurry to the store before it closes; I may feel it is best to walk to the store, and you may feel it is best for me to drive to the store for timely purposes, while you suggestion may seem like an objective right it is still subjective- and it is irrelevant to say: "but there still can be an objective right way to get to the store timely," esp. if neither one of us knows what it is and will not know what it is.
I don't believe you can substantiate your claim about early humans.
I am sure that our ancestors--which lead to early humans--were wild and naturally apart of the animal world (we are animals, but I am speaking from the general perspective of what is animalistic and what is not). This being said, they had no moral codes seeing as how even you stated that humans today necessitate morality as a guide for what our instincts won't do, and animals having the instincts that show them 'how' to do what they need for survival. Basically, going off of your notion, our ancestors had the instincts for survival.
-----
As for survival; (1) Humans need food, sex, and health for survival; (2) Humans instinctually know all three of these things; (3) Humans only need to know how to do these thing--which they do; (4) Any "best way" to do so would be someone's subjective view; (5) worst way does not entail 'extinction due to lack of survival'; (6) to basically say: "it doesn't matter that all viewpoints are subjective, the fact that there is a necessary objective moral(s)--of which everyone can be unaware--there regardless of the unawareness" is completely irrelevant and shows that one does not need to follow a system of codes in order to survive (hence "unawareness") which could only mean that these supposed 'codes' are only instinctual actions if what you are suggesting is true. (7) this is because if your idea of objective morality is true, and it is true we are unaware of these objective morals- which obviously we follow as we are surviving and you stated that objective morality was necessitated for survival, then our actions that you suppose are morally based, are in fact not morally based because you stated that this was a requirement do to 'lack of instinct', but if we are unaware of this requirement for our survival and we are surviving, then we can conclude that we are following your supposition instinctually, how else would we act on something we are unaware of that is systemized objectively and would require ones awareness for survival?; and (8) Instinctual actions are made for survival, your supposed moral actions that are beyond our awareness are acted on, and this would only mean that if one is naturally acting on something that one is not aware of that is causing or helping one to survive, then that action would require instinct.
Animal instinct does not tell them, necessarily, 'how'
It's strange that you are arguing for varying degrees of learned behavior, when that is something you argued against earlier. Yes, various animals learn various things. There are also many things that are necessary that animals just know through instinct. Humans have far fewer of these.
The life quality I can understand
As I argued earlier, the discovery of better conduct (progressing toward best conduct), allows us to survive better. Better quality of life IS surviving better.
I am sure that our ancestors
I didn't think that could be substantiated. Of course if you go back far enough, our ancestors were single celled organisms. It's a bit irrelevant.
What's 'best' for someone is purely subjective coming from another source.
If the goal is to get to the store quickly, do you really think that a method that is obviously quicker is still just a matter of opinion? If a car WILL get you there quicker, that's not subjective. It really is better for accomplishing the stated goal.
Humans know the basics of what they need to survive. But really wanting to be warm will not create and understanding of natural insulations (like a squirrel). Wanting things is the best we have for instinct. It's not sufficient. If you really think that humans instinctually know what is needed to survive, it merely shows your lack of experience with the subject matter.
your supposed moral actions that are beyond our awareness are acted on
The rest of your argument, based on what I said earlier, is only taking some of my statements. Limited (but expanding) knowledge of best conduct is not the same as no knowledge at all. I have been consistent in my position that a basic code of conduct is needed for survival and that an objectively best moral code is discovered over time. Thus we now survive better than before, that is to say we have a better quality of life. None of this will sink in if you think that a faster method being used to get somewhere quicker is a matter of opinion.
As I argued earlier, the discovery of better conduct (progressing toward best conduct), allows us to survive better. Better quality of life IS surviving better.
You go from survival necessitating objective morals then say better morals are necessitated for survival. There's a distinction between a better life and just life itself.
I didn't think that could be substantiated
Ha, for the favor of your argument you do not accept that primitive ancestors were not 'animal-like' even when evolution says otherwise? Only because I can't prove it? You seriously went there... Okay. I guess this is the same when religious folk say I can't disprove god (which is clearly impossible).
If a car WILL get you there quicker, that's not subjective.
I can be an extremely slow car; it could be extremely low on gas; (assume it is not either one of these things) the person driving the car may drive slow due to extreme fear of crashing out of their control; but if one were to walk, then they may feel more in control. Basically stating a car will objectively get you their quicker than on foot is entirely subjective- and if you were to include "always" then it would be falsely subjective.
. If you really think that humans instinctually know what is needed to survive, it merely shows your lack of experience with the subject matter.
Moral necessities (I.e. good and bad behavior) are subjective. A search for food is not a moral code, raising a child is not a moral code, doing what you must to survive (I.e. drinking and eating) is not a moral code, so where does morality come into play as a necessity for survival (not "better" survival, just mere survival)?
----
As for the rest; poorly addressed. Maybe this was intentional because you couldn't really refute each point, but nonetheless it was poorly addressed.
You go from survival necessitating objective morals
A code of conduct is necessitated for survival. A better code, brings better survival. Maintaining life is survival, maintaining it better is better survival. It is also a better quality of life.
Ha, for the favor of your argument you do not accept that primitive ancestors were not 'animal-like'
Consider reading my entire post before jumping into a rebuttal. Obviously we have animal ancestors. That's what I said. But the large frontal lobe unique in humans resulted from a rapidly changing environment that required dropping particular instincts in favor of concept based codes of conduct. This way a human can respond to a variety of situations. That part of the brain is also theorized to have developed in order to work better in teams (since humans are comparatively physically weak). Working in a social environment necessitates a code of conduct for success.
I thought you might substantiate your claim by quoting someone who knows what they are talking about. I don't think that any source who knows what they are talking about would claim what you claimed. That's what I mean by you not being able to substantiate your claim.
If a car WILL
By dropping the "if" part of my statement you are removing context in order to claim the subjectivity of speed. This is simply a lack of conceptual thought in favor of perceptual particulars on your part.
A search for food is not a moral code, raising a child is not a moral code, doing what you must to survive (I.e. drinking and eating) is not a moral code,
Human beings act in a self-destructive manner all the time. Self-destruction through inaction is objectively immoral and is subjectively viewed as such. It is viewed with moral disgust. This exemplifies the fact that these basic activities are in fact moral activities.
EDIT: Substantiating ones opinion:
In the introduction to the book "The Moral Brain: Essays on the Evolutionary and Neuroscientific Aspects of Morality", Jan Verplaetse, Johan Braeckman, and Jelle De Schrijver stated that “Anthropologists who studied the development of morality among human ancestors, sought to understand the natural mechanisms that hold groups of non-humans together”, and that “No clear-cut demarcation separated the social life of animals from the moral phenomena in humans.”
Killing someone isn't usually the right thing to do, but sometimes it is necessary. Regarding evolution, members of a species would normally be predated on by other species. Which was like a natural concept of eugenics: those who cannot adapt will die and not reproduce. Humans are in a unique situation and are able to question all this. Murder, I guess, isn't wrong. There are motives which are wrong: delusions like hatred, jealousy and greed, but I don't think the actual act of killing someone is wrong. Ideals of right and wrong can only be applied to what goes on in the mind, for these ideals are human, not natural.
Objective morality does not exist, and consequentially no action is objectively wrong.
Subjective morality does exist, and it developed as an evolutionary mechanism to regulate interpersonal behavior within the species. Pro-moral social groupings of early humans had an advantage over non-moral groupings, and because the pro-moral instinct allowed these groups to survive more successfully morality was passed on evolutionarily despite its sometimes being detrimental to individual members of the species.
Evolution is what makes life possible, it allows organisms
to adapt to the environment as it changes, its responsible for huge diversity
and complicity of live on earth. Which not only provides organises with source
of food and healthy competition, it also gives us some truly awesome stuff to
marvel at. And even tho Evolution makes living thing different from one
another, it also shows us how we are all the same. All live, every single thing
that’s alive on earth today, can claim the same shared heritage. Having descended
from the very first microorganism, when life originated on this planet 3.8
million years ago.
There are people who will say that this is all random ( which it isn't ) and that this clumsy process could not be responsible for the majestic beauty of our world. And to them people I say well at least we can agree that our world is beautiful. There are 2 kinds of people in the world,
the people who are excited about the power and beauty of evolution and those