Objective Morality

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, evolution would only provide the capacity to recognize moral and immoral (a brain), and carry either out or not. But it doesn’t define what is moral. Evolution has given man the capacity to rape a woman, ignore her as she is raped, or to defend the woman. Natural selection doesn’t care if a particularly successful dictator furnishes his many offspring with material wealth squeezed from impoverished subjects. In such a case, he is apparently well adapted…therefore, moral? Evolution loves variety, if anything. One of the necessary ingredients of natural selection. [/quote]

And does the murderer view murder as wrong? Morals are entirely subjective. We all believe in our own morals entirely but really that’s just what they are, our morals.

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, evolution would only provide the capacity to recognize moral and immoral (a brain), and carry either out or not. [/quote]

That’s spot on to how I feel about it. I see morality as something defined by the Greater Intellect that we have been blessed as at least being able to see a part of the laws of morality through the thoughts of individuals and collectives through space and time (places and history basically). Further blessedness is had by discovering more ultimate truths and obliging to the oughts brought on by them. [/quote]
Hey man you make it sound as if this “greater intellect” arbitrarily decides what is moral.
You may like this article.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality[/quote]

I did a cursory read of it and the punishment for ‘sin’ or moral wrongdoing to me is a type of separation of God. A reduction and/or perversion of one’s essence.

Meh, my essence has been perverted since birth. I was like a non-superpowered version of the omen. First attempt at murder was age 2, first sexual stuff soon after. Also sneaking to the living room to watch late night porn before I started preschool. Hell seems like it wouldn’t affect me at all.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[/quote]

I’m still working out a lot of kinks. This philosophy thing is tough.

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Meh, my essence has been perverted since birth. I was like a non-superpowered version of the omen. First attempt at murder was age 2, first sexual stuff soon after. Also sneaking to the living room to watch late night porn before I started preschool. Hell seems like it wouldn’t affect me at all.[/quote]
[photo]37510[/photo]

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Meh, my essence has been perverted since birth. I was like a non-superpowered version of the omen. First attempt at murder was age 2, first sexual stuff soon after. Also sneaking to the living room to watch late night porn before I started preschool. Hell seems like it wouldn’t affect me at all.[/quote]
[photo]37510[/photo][/quote]
I almost sprayed cottage cheese on my screen, spidey memes are hilarious.

You’ll notice that the only crimes I’ve admitted to I can’t be punished for.

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I almost sprayed cottage cheese on my screen[/quote]

[quote]Alex Good wrote: You’ll notice that the only crimes I’ve admitted to I can’t be punished for.[/quote]Oh, but you can. I hope not, but indeed you can.

Are you telling me that they would prosecute a 2 year old for attempted murder?

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Meh, my essence has been perverted since birth. I was like a non-superpowered version of the omen. First attempt at murder was age 2, first sexual stuff soon after. Also sneaking to the living room to watch late night porn before I started preschool. Hell seems like it wouldn’t affect me at all.[/quote]
[photo]37510[/photo][/quote]
I almost sprayed cottage cheese on my screen, spidey memes are hilarious.[/quote]

For cryin out loud, me too. I’m still laughing! Thank you, groo.

[quote]Alex Good wrote:
Are you telling me that they would prosecute a 2 year old for attempted murder?[/quote]

Depends upon whom you consider “they.”

Think about it for just a minute, smart guy.

Honestly, it’s like playing whack-a-mole around here recently. We had Brian Hanson, whom I knew would not last, then some other guy recently, Matt something or other, some name with an ‘M’ in it, can’t remember, now Alex the Sociopathic Etymologist.

What is it with guys like you wandering in and out of here recently? Did you find GAL too challenging?

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
…Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory. (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).[/quote]

When it comes to evolution, any deeper meaning beyond survival or reproduction is illusory, or at least I understand it that way. Therefore also morality has to be a product of adaptation if one frames the question in evolutionary terms.

The basis for morality is supposedly in normal group behaviour. There are people that lack moral consepts in the way people normally have them, they know what is right and what is wrong, but it’s purely cerebral infromation without any emotional counterpart. Upbringing plays a big role, too. Who are you loyal to: your family, clan, neighbours, countrymen? Who deserves to be treated in a moral way.

When one answers the question of morality in philosphical terms we get a more distilled conception of morality and the morality of an individual act is measured with the concept and its rules. Morality as a concept is now in focus in a way it never can be in an evolutionary context. Therefore sharper distinctions and morality gets an objective existence.

I haven’t really thought much about these things, but that’s a start, eh?

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
…Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory. (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).[/quote]

When it comes to evolution, any deeper meaning beyond survival or reproduction is illusory, or at least I understand it that way. Therefore also morality has to be a product of adaptation if one frames the question in evolutionary terms.

The basis for morality is supposedly in normal group behaviour. There are people that lack moral consepts in the way people normally have them, they know what is right and what is wrong, but it’s purely cerebral infromation without any emotional counterpart. Upbringing plays a big role, too. Who are you loyal to: your family, clan, neighbours, countrymen? Who deserves to be treated in a moral way.

When one answers the question of morality in philosphical terms we get a more distilled conception of morality and the morality of an individual act is measured with the concept and its rules. Morality as a concept is now in focus in a way it never can be in an evolutionary context. Therefore sharper distinctions and morality gets an objective existence.

I haven’t really thought much about these things, but that’s a start, eh?[/quote]

Wait, so you believe objective morality is nothing more than the illusion of right and wrong, a concept born of the circumstances of our nature, and NOT a metaphysical entity?

Or are you saying something else? I would like to get you to clarify this before I ask my next question, but in the interest of saving time: If the above IS an accurate paraphrasing of your statement, are you prepared to follow that statement to its logical conclusion? It’s not a pretty place, and there are very few atheists who are comfortable going where that line of thinking leads.

Eph and TigerTime are the only guys here that I can recall fully owning it and not trying to weasle around the problem with a pseudo-metaphysical solution.

Even Forlife was not willing to admit to this (hear that, Tirib?). I seem to recall he said something like “love” was, in an of itself, justification enough to adhere to a set of moral rules. Whatever that means.

Now, if I read you wrong, and you DO believe that, for instance, raping infants is a necessarily immoral act, then you’ve got a bit more explaining to do.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Wait, so you believe objective morality is nothing more than the illusion of right and wrong, a concept born of the circumstances of our nature, and NOT a metaphysical entity?
[/quote]

What is a metaphysical entity? Does it exist like a platonic idea? Or does it exist in the heads, and only in the heads of the people who think about it? I would say the latter. Therefore without human consciousness there are no metaphysical entities, you need language to create them.

Now, the reason why we create metaphysical entities lies in the fact that we need them to create meaning out of life, and probaby to maintain an orderly society, too. Right and wrong comes directly from ourselves. So, the answer to the question if raping children is bad comes from ourselves, too. And we all know the answer, it is indeed a bad thing to do.

If I claim that there is no good or evil then I’m in essence forgetting who I am, I’m ventriloguing from some vague and abstract point of view, like I had the means to step out from my condition. A very common mistake, but good and evil exists necessarily for mortals, even though defining the borders isn’t always that easy.

Did that make more sense?

[quote]groo wrote:
In practice I’d say this is largely how most people operate. People tend to be only as moral as they need to be to escape censure. Most like to think they are a “good” person but with a fair examination I think most of us tend to be most moral when we operate with family, friends and associates and when away from them often behavior gets a lot less good. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas ya know.

This is kinda like thinking love is something more than some kind of biological adaptation to use his words. Certainly I’d say most who have kids would think it something more, but when we look at someone like say Casey Anthony that seems to be broken somehow it can certainly make you uneasy about thinking anything can be transcendent. [/quote]
I’m not sure I agree with the first portion.

I’ve been in situations where intrinsically motivated moral decisions have made me the bad guy. I don’t believe the implication that morals are essentially a survival tool to cope with external pressures.

[quote]CargoCapable wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
In practice I’d say this is largely how most people operate. People tend to be only as moral as they need to be to escape censure. Most like to think they are a “good” person but with a fair examination I think most of us tend to be most moral when we operate with family, friends and associates and when away from them often behavior gets a lot less good. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas ya know.

This is kinda like thinking love is something more than some kind of biological adaptation to use his words. Certainly I’d say most who have kids would think it something more, but when we look at someone like say Casey Anthony that seems to be broken somehow it can certainly make you uneasy about thinking anything can be transcendent. [/quote]
I’m not sure I agree with the first portion.

I’ve been in situations where intrinsically motivated moral decisions have made me the bad guy. I don’t believe the implication that morals are essentially a survival tool to cope with external pressures.[/quote]

I could quickly think of about a hundred examples that support this statement.

Following what is generally understood to be “the good” is just as often NOT in the interest of some utilitarian idea of group proflication or “good.” <== I know you are aware of the circularity here, groo.

I also know that you are aware that morality is not the decisions people make or the actions they take. The intrinsic immorality of baby rape is not suddenly called to question the moment someone decides to rape a baby. Morality informs us that the act IS wrong, under all circumstances, everywhere.

While I don’t dispute the virtually universal stance that baby rape is wrong, I don’t see any reason to attribute this to a metaphysical or religious cause.

We are hardwired to do many things; our bodies are capable of functioning independently of our will [flee or fight respons for instance], so why is a metaphysical cause necessary when you could also argue that, since procreation lies at the very heart of our existence, the violation of an innocent baby is seen with great disgust because it is [perceived as] a voilation of our very nature?