gooseboy wrote:Xamonas Chegwé wrote:Even if there are aspects of morality that are hard-coded genetically (as opposed to learnt memetically, or reasoned individually) this does not make them objective.
Why not? Because the only way in which they could be hard-coded is through the actions of genes - and we all know that genes are subject to change through mutation and selection - hence it does not follow that any given individual will inherit the same set of hard-coded, independent-of-learning-or-culture genes.
I am quite prepared to accept that a portion of my personal moral compass is inherited directly, rather than acquired through parenting, education and experience, but I am not prepared to accept that that identical portion is universal across all mankind - because to do so would be to accept that it was genetically inviolate, which is simply against everything I know about genetics and evolution.
So, to my mind, the whole concept of genetically inherited morality is a red herring as far as objectivity goes.
I disagree. If some of our morals are encoded in our genes (
which you say you accept*) then these morals are subject to Darwinian natural selection.
Yes, such 'genetic morals' - should they exist - would have to be subject to natural selection in the same manner as any gene.
* Which I said I was
prepared to accept - not the same as accept - I would need to see evidence in order to accept that these exist. My reasoning was based upon a hypothetical acceptance of that situation which was only put forward in order to expose the fact that it did not imply objectivity. Personally, I doubt the existence of such genetic morality except in the vaguest definition of such a thing.
Once this is established then we can confer that some morals are better suited to helping the individual than others, thus some will do a better job of surviving that others.
'Do a better job' is not the same as 'eliminate all competing genes'. This was the crux of my argument - that in any gene locus there are several possible alleles that can inhabit that position - in fact, in any organism, a pair of alleles which may or may not be the same and often are not. Complicating this situation still further is the fact that, since a single gene merely codes for the amino acid sequence of a single protein, multiple genes would almost certainly have to be involved in the determining of something as complex as hard-coded mental traits, adding to the variation in the phenotype.
If this is the case I really can't see that such inherited morals are subjective, any more than the correct skin colour to have in a particular climate is subjective from an evolutionary view point. Thus I would still think that there is some objectivity in at least some of our morals.
Albinos occur among dark-skinned people, as do natural, less drastic variations in skin tone. Similarly, natural variation in morality would be expected (even given that there is a
proven genetic basis for it in the first place, which I have already stated that I do not accept.)
Even if genetically determined morality does occur in the human genome, it would not necessarily imply objective morality, merely a possible restriction on subjective morality based on the available variation in genotype and expressed phenotype.
It took a few beers to boil that one up into my consciousness - for some reason it occurred to me out of the blue while discussing pubs that had closed down recently in the local area (go figure!) - but I am pretty sure it holds.
