Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Drewish]

FBM and I were both getting a bit too passionate about things to be level headed (In my opinion.) So at times like that it's good to take a step back, lest I betray the principles I desire to hold myself to (Which would only make me a hypocrite.) That said, I think it would do for me to link to a video of Richard Dawkins for a second. stop me if you've seen this one.

nice guys finish first

[Trolldor]

Good job gooseboy. I intentionally stepped out of this argument for a while because I was clearly pissing people off, but you've shown fairly clearly that there is an objective standard (ie survival) by which to compare moralities. But I think that it's important to note whether we are discussing the survival of the morality itself, or the survival of individual(s) who have the morality. Clearly moralities will continue to spread and vary just like any organism might, but if we are to say that a morality is 'good' or 'evil' then it must be in relation to either morality itself or something (the bearer or the morality for example.)

Except 'survival' is neither good or bad, and that which benefits survival is neither good or bad. Survival is just survival.

[gooseboy]

I don't agree that Gooseboy has "shown fairly clearly that there is an objective standard (ie survival) by which to compare moralities." I have stated several times that the genetic argument for objective morality is fatally flawed owing to the fluid, evolving nature of genetics - if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective.

"fixed and objective"? I never said morals were fixed (ie I don't believe in moral absolutes). But just because morals aren't fixed does not mean that one moral can't be objectively better than another moral.

Further to that, there is no hard evidence that any specific morals have a genetic rather than memetic basis - that is mere supposition.

Firstly, whether a moral is encoded genetically or memetically is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not the moral can reproduce itself. If the moral can reproduce itself then we can compare morals by how well they reproduce themselves. Note that I am NOT saying that a moral which is good at reproducing itself is a "better" moral in any sense other than the evolutionary sense that it is better at reproducing itself.

But for the "mere supposition" - did you read what I said about incest and the quotes that LBoN found? There is a known mechanism for preventing inter-sibling incest (the Westermarck effect). It's a lot more than "mere supposition" that the fact that most people view incest as bad has a genetic basis. But if you believe that it has a memetic basis then that implies that you believe that you were taught to think that incest was bad. Is this the case?

Personally, as an aside, I would propose that a couple of behaviours that are more than normally likely to be passed to the next generation (assuming that they are genetic in origin) are those of of promiscuity and sexual aggression. Neither of these tends to feature highly in most lists of virtues!

I would posit that men who are extremely sexually aggressive tend not to be popular with the ladies and also tend to get locked up once they've been convicted of rape. Thus I would suggest that they are less able to pass on their genes than people who have a closer to average level of sexual aggression. But in other species this is not the case and extreme sexual aggression is the norm (at least in mating season). I have very little doubt that our level of sexual aggression has a Darwinian explanation.

[gooseboy]

But just because morals aren't fixed does not mean that one moral can't be objectively better than another moral.

Just to make what I believe absolutely clear - one moral is only objectively better than another from an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in. If the environment changes then the ability of one moral to survive relative to a competing moral would also change. And I will stress again that I do not believe in moral absolutes.

[Drewish]

But just because morals aren't fixed does not mean that one moral can't be objectively better than another moral.

Just to make what I believe absolutely clear - one moral is only objectively better than another from an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in. If the environment changes then the ability of one moral to survive relative to a competing moral would also change. And I will stress again that I do not believe in moral absolutes.

I would go one step further and say that the then objectively superior morality would be a sort of meta-morality that contains within it a notion of the idea that the role of morality is to foster evolutionary survival.

[starr]

But just because morals aren't fixed does not mean that one moral can't be objectively better than another moral.

Just to make what I believe absolutely clear - one moral is only objectively better than another from an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in. If the environment changes then the ability of one moral to survive relative to a competing moral would also change. And I will stress again that I do not believe in moral absolutes.

That helps me to understand your position more clearly.

I think perhaps it is a semantic issue where your opinion differs from mine on this issue. To me (and I think some of the others arguing against objective morality here) 'objective morality' means 'moral absolutes'. As I understand it, 'moral absolutes' are what is meant by 'objective morality' in a philosophical discussion such as this one.

The qualifiers you are putting around your 'objective' criterion for judging morals is the issue for me. Not the qualifiers themselves, just the fact that you are choosing qualifiers at all. Your chosen qualifiers are "from an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in." Whether or not that is a 'good' way to judge morals is subjective. Therefore, in an absolute sense, any judgements you make about morals using your qualifiers is also subjective.

You could achieve a degree of objectivity if the focus of the discussion is narrowed and everybody agrees that we want to judge morals based on "an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in". However, there is no such agreement that your chosen criteria for judging morals is the best one. I continue to see this discussion as pertaining to moral absolutes.

Does that make our difference of opinion any clearer?




[off topic] I love that we have the smiliey here now [/off topic]

[charlou]

Hi Andrew, good to see you return to this. I hope you can enjoy it despite the frustration that inevitably arises out of disagreement in debates of this nature. For me, that's part of the challenge ...

But just because morals aren't fixed does not mean that one moral can't be objectively better than another moral.

Just to make what I believe absolutely clear - one moral is only objectively better than another from an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in. If the environment changes then the ability of one moral to survive relative to a competing moral would also change. And I will stress again that I do not believe in moral absolutes.

I've mentioned this tendency to conflate 'moral' with 'behaviour' a few times now and it seems to have been overlooked/ignored ...

if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective.

Try this, XC: if apes can evolve, they are not fixed and objective.

See the problem with that? Obviously genetic evolution implies not fixed ... but objective?

This is where it's important to make a distinction between genetic evolution and memetic evolution.

[gooseboy]

But just because morals aren't fixed does not mean that one moral can't be objectively better than another moral.

Just to make what I believe absolutely clear - one moral is only objectively better than another from an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in. If the environment changes then the ability of one moral to survive relative to a competing moral would also change. And I will stress again that I do not believe in moral absolutes.

That helps me to understand your position more clearly.

I think perhaps it is a semantic issue where your opinion differs from mine on this issue. To me (and I think some of the others arguing against objective morality here) 'objective morality' means 'moral absolutes'. As I understand it, 'moral absolutes' are what is meant by 'objective morality' in a philosophical discussion such as this one.

The qualifiers you are putting around your 'objective' criterion for judging morals is the issue for me. Not the qualifiers themselves, just the fact that you are choosing qualifiers at all. Your chosen qualifiers are "from an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in." Whether or not that is a 'good' way to judge morals is subjective. Therefore, in an absolute sense, any judgements you make about morals using your qualifiers is also subjective.

You could achieve a degree of objectivity if the focus of the discussion is narrowed and everybody agrees that we want to judge morals based on "an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in". However, there is no such agreement that your chosen criteria for judging morals is the best one. I continue to see this discussion as pertaining to moral absolutes.

Does that make our difference of opinion any clearer?




[off topic] I love that we have the smiliey here now [/off topic]

http://www.dictionary.com

ob⋅jec⋅tive  /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/
–noun
1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2. Grammar. a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.
b. a word in that case.

3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.

–adjective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
9. Grammar. a. pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition.
b. (in English and some other languages) noting the objective case.
c. similar to such a case in meaning.
d. (in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun phrase that denotes something undergoing a change of state or bearing a neutral relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock moved or in The child threw the rock.

10. being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn: an objective plane.
11. Medicine/Medical. (of a symptom) discernible to others as well as the patient.



ab⋅so⋅lute  /ˈæbsəˌlut, ˌæbsəˈlut/
–adjective
1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2. not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3. complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, esp. when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.
7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.
8. Grammar. a. relatively independent syntactically. The construction It being Sunday in It being Sunday, the family went to church is an absolute construction.
b. (of a usually transitive verb) used without an object, as the verb give in The charity asked him to give.
c. (of an adjective) having its noun understood, not expressed, as poor in The poor are always with us.
d. characterizing the phonological form of a word or phrase occurring by itself, not influenced by surrounding forms, as not in is not (as opposed to isn't), or will in they will (as opposed to they'll). Compare sandhi.

9. Physics. a. independent of arbitrary standards or of particular properties of substances or systems: absolute humidity.
b. pertaining to a system of units, as the centimeter-gram-second system, based on some primary units, esp. units of length, mass, and time.
c. pertaining to a measurement based on an absolute zero or unit: absolute temperature.

10. Education. noting or pertaining to the scale of a grading system based on an individual's performance considered as representing his or her knowledge of a given subject regardless of the performance of others in a group: The math department marks on an absolute scale. Compare curve (def. 10).
11. Climatology. noting or pertaining to the highest or lowest value of a meteorological quantity recorded during a given, usually long, period of time: absolute maximum temperature.
12. Mathematics. (of an inequality) indicating that the expression is true for all values of the variable, as x2 + 1 > 0 for all real numbers x; unconditional. Compare conditional (def. 6).
13. Computers. machine-specific and requiring no translation (opposed to symbolic ): absolute coding; absolute address.

–noun
14. something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative ).
15. the absolute, a. something that is free from any restriction or condition.
b. something that is independent of some or all relations.
c. something that is perfect or complete.
d. (in Hegelianism) the world process operating in accordance with the absolute idea.


To try to say that "objective morality" means the same as "absolute morality" seems pretty ridiculous to me.

[starr]

To try to say that "objective morality" means the same as "absolute morality" seems pretty ridiculous to me.

I've just quoted the aspects of the definition that I think are most relevant to my assertion that 'objective morality' in a philosophical sense is the same as 'absolute morality'.

http://www.dictionary.com

ob⋅jec⋅tive  /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/
–noun
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).


ab⋅so⋅lute  /ˈæbsəˌlut, ˌæbsəˈlut/
–adjective
6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic: absolute knowledge.
7. positive; certain: absolute in opinion; absolute evidence.
9. Physics. a. independent of arbitrary standards or of particular properties of substances or systems: absolute humidity.
b. pertaining to a system of units, as the centimeter-gram-second system, based on some primary units, esp. units of length, mass, and time.
c. pertaining to a measurement based on an absolute zero or unit: absolute temperature.
12. Mathematics. (of an inequality) indicating that the expression is true for all values of the variable, as x2 + 1 > 0 for all real numbers x; unconditional. Compare conditional (def. 6).
13. Computers. machine-specific and requiring no translation (opposed to symbolic ): absolute coding; absolute address.
–noun
14. something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative ).
15. the absolute, a. something that is free from any restriction or condition.
b. something that is independent of some or all relations.
c. something that is perfect or complete.
d. (in Hegelianism) the world process operating in accordance with the absolute idea.

The 'object' of perception or thought is absolutely pure in its independence from subjective perceptions. Thus, objective morality needs to exist independently from our subjective perceptions. In your case you are subjectively deciding that 'an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in' is the best 'objective' way to compare moral values.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective.

Try this, XC: if apes can evolve, they are not fixed and objective.

See the problem with that? Obviously genetic evolution implies not fixed ... but objective?

This is where it's important to make a distinction between genetic evolution and memetic evolution.

No, I don't see the problem. Apes are not fixed. Like every other species on the planet, they are evolving - generation by generation - mainly simple things like resistances to new strains of disease, etc. Given enough time (and assuming we don't kill them all off first) there may be whole new species of apes - many of which we maybe wouldn't initially recognise as apes - or maybe there won't be any apes at all because something else will have out-competed and replaced them. Tell me what is objective about an ape?

Plus - and it's an important plus - the proposed genetic basis for morality is a physical characteristic, not an entire superfamily! The two are not at all comparable.

My standpoint all along has been that, whereas there may be a genetic basis for some aspects of morality, this does not make it objective. Memetic evolution of morality is even less fixed as it has no automatic method of transference from one generation to another - it has to be taught.

Objective morality, as I understand it, means that some (undefined) things are absolutely right or wrong, without recourse to individual opinion. All any kind of evolved, inherited morality would mean would be that individuals have arrived at their individual opinions of right or wrong through natural selection but they are still individual opinions. Even if every member of the human race was born with the same, evolved, individual opinions, that would still not make those opinion objectively true. A chance mutation could result in a person being born that had a different set of morals that somehow meant that their chances of survival and reproduction were increased at any time.

As I keep saying, whether morality has evolved or not is a red herring. Moral objectivity has to be beyond the current, prevalent, genetic mix, or it is not objective at all, merely a majority opinion.

[gooseboy]

To try to say that "objective morality" means the same as "absolute morality" seems pretty ridiculous to me.

I've just quoted the aspects of the definition that I think are most relevant to my assertion that 'objective morality' in a philosophical sense is the same as 'absolute morality'.

You say morals are purely subjective. I say no, there's a way to judge them objectively. So then you come back with objective means the same as absolute and morals aren't absolute so therefore... what exactly?

The 'object' of perception or thought is absolutely pure in its independence from subjective perceptions. Thus, objective morality needs to exist independently from our subjective perceptions. In your case you are subjectively deciding that 'an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in' is the best 'objective' way to compare moral values.

Where did I say that an evolutionary viewpoint is the best way to judge moral values? The answer is that I didn't, and your argument is pure strawman. All I have said, which I will repeat again, is that there is a way to objectively judge morals, thus they are not purely subjective.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

To try to say that "objective morality" means the same as "absolute morality" seems pretty ridiculous to me.

I've just quoted the aspects of the definition that I think are most relevant to my assertion that 'objective morality' in a philosophical sense is the same as 'absolute morality'.

You say morals are purely subjective. I say no, there's a way to judge them objectively. So then you come back with objective means the same as absolute and morals aren't absolute so therefore... what exactly?

The 'object' of perception or thought is absolutely pure in its independence from subjective perceptions. Thus, objective morality needs to exist independently from our subjective perceptions. In your case you are subjectively deciding that 'an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in' is the best 'objective' way to compare moral values.

Where did I say that an evolutionary viewpoint is the best way to judge moral values? The answer is that I didn't, and your argument is pure strawman. All I have said, which I will repeat again, is that there is a way to objectively judge morals, thus they are not purely subjective.

(My emphasis)

Can you tell us what that way is?

[FBM]

If a certain behavior were to be hardwired into your genes, you wouldn't be morally culpable. It wouldn't be a moral issue at all, it'd be a medical one. You can't be held morally responsible for something that you didn't choose.

Yes, I see your point, but I'm not sure it will hold up under scrutiny. Let me do some reading and get back to you on this.

[charlou]

hehehe, FBM I was hoping to get around to that one, too. Perhaps later, though ...

if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective.

Try this, XC: if apes can evolve, they are not fixed and objective.

See the problem with that? Obviously genetic evolution implies not fixed ... but objective?

This is where it's important to make a distinction between genetic evolution and memetic evolution.

No, I don't see the problem. Apes are not fixed. Like every other species on the planet, they are evolving - generation by generation - mainly simple things like resistances to new strains of disease, etc. Given enough time (and assuming we don't kill them all off first) there may be whole new species of apes - many of which we maybe wouldn't initially recognise as apes - or maybe there won't be any apes at all because something else will have out-competed and replaced them.

Agreed. Perhaps if you read what I wrote again, particularly the bolded part, you'll see that's not the point I was making.

Tell me what is objective about an ape?

That's the point of contention I wanted to highlight - the 'if it evolves it's not objective' part. When it comes to genetic inheritance I don't agree with you that because it evolves it's not objective. If it exists in any form (evolving or static) independently and regardless of our subjective awareness of it, it objectively exists. Apes fit that criteria. Concepts (memes) such as morals, though, don't objectively exist because they exist only through our subjective awareness of behaviours. Behaviours, not morals. There's that distinction again, for those who keep missing it.

Plus - and it's an important plus - the proposed genetic basis for morality is a physical characteristic, not an entire superfamily! The two are not at all comparable.

The genetic basis (objective) for the concept (subjective) of morality.

My standpoint all along has been that, whereas there may be a genetic basis for some aspects of morality, this does not make it objective.

there may be a genetic basis (objective) for some behaviours that our concept (subjective) of morality applies values (obviously, again, subjective) to.

Objective morality, as I understand it, means that some (undefined) things are absolutely right or wrong, without recourse to individual opinion. All any kind of evolved, inherited morality would mean would be that individuals have arrived at their individual opinions of right or wrong through natural selection but they are still individual opinions. Even if every member of the human race was born with the same, evolved, individual opinions, that would still not make those opinion objectively true. A chance mutation could result in a person being born that had a different set of morals that somehow meant that their chances of survival and reproduction were increased at any time.

Or decreased. Tangental aside: People with autism may be one example of humans who could be considered 'amoral' and who would likely not survive without external support (but in their case that lack of survival skill would not be due to amorality, but other factors related to autism).

[gooseboy]

To try to say that "objective morality" means the same as "absolute morality" seems pretty ridiculous to me.

I've just quoted the aspects of the definition that I think are most relevant to my assertion that 'objective morality' in a philosophical sense is the same as 'absolute morality'.

You say morals are purely subjective. I say no, there's a way to judge them objectively. So then you come back with objective means the same as absolute and morals aren't absolute so therefore... what exactly?

The 'object' of perception or thought is absolutely pure in its independence from subjective perceptions. Thus, objective morality needs to exist independently from our subjective perceptions. In your case you are subjectively deciding that 'an evolutionary viewpoint in the environment that it's in' is the best 'objective' way to compare moral values.

Where did I say that an evolutionary viewpoint is the best way to judge moral values? The answer is that I didn't, and your argument is pure strawman. All I have said, which I will repeat again, is that there is a way to objectively judge morals, thus they are not purely subjective.

(My emphasis)

Can you tell us what that way is?

Sure. From how well they replicate. (Note this is not the same as how 'good' or 'bad' one might subjectively think a moral is. All I am saying is some morals can be objectively measured to replicate better than others)

For example, the 'moral' of kill all your family and then yourself would never survive in any society. The 'moral' of be good to your wife might. Thus from the point of view of how well the moral survives (or the genes or memes that encode the moral survive if you want to look at it that way) 'be good to your wife' is a better moral than 'kill all your family and then yourself'.

From this I would predict that in no cultures anywhere on any planet would killing all your family and then yourself be considered moral, but I would expect that there's a chance that being good to your wife may be considered moral in some cultures.