Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[FBM]

How about this: Introduce ANY evidence for ANY of the points you've made throughout the thread.

Wot? Who, me?

[Trolldor]

How about this: Introduce ANY evidence for ANY of the points you've made throughout the thread.

Wot? Who, me?

Yeah, you as well.

I've repeatedly asked for evidence. Seriously, go back and see how many times.

[FBM]

How about this: Introduce ANY evidence for ANY of the points you've made throughout the thread.

Wot? Who, me?

Yeah, you as well.

I've repeatedly asked for evidence. Seriously, go back and see how many times.

I've cited sources and links to relevant experts' statements, wtf? Look back just a l'il bit....

[Drewish]

BAA, you have said "Where are the facts?" Several times, but when you do nobody knows who you're talking to or what statement you're challenging as baseless. You need to be more specific, or nobody will be able to respond to you effectively.

[Trolldor]

How about this: Introduce ANY evidence for ANY of the points you've made throughout the thread.

Wot? Who, me?

Yeah, you as well.

I've repeatedly asked for evidence. Seriously, go back and see how many times.

I've cited sources and links to relevant experts' statements, wtf? Look back just a l'il bit....

I thought my first comment was enough for you to know I wasn't referring to you. I think you've been on the internets for too long right now, dDon't you have some insurance claims to reject?

[FBM]

You need to be more specific, or nobody will be able to respond to you effectively.

Yes, that's a problem in this thread, isn't it? People who make bald assertions without providing scholarly support for them...

I thought my first comment was enough for you to know I wasn't referring to you. I think you've been on the internets for too long right now, dDon't you have some insurance claims to reject?

Shit. I just finished re-watching Memento. How'd you know that?

[gooseboy]

This genetic/physical component however would not include any specific moral values or rules. It would merely be a framework within which moral values and rules could develop/imprint/transfer etc.

Is that just an assertion? Do have you any studies that support it?

Richard Dawkins talks about the transfer of moral or cultural information in terms of his theory of memetics. I don't know a lot about memetics, but I do know it's considered controversial. It certainly does not have the same standing in the scientific community as the theory of evolution. Memetics is an analogous theory that Dawkins has come up with to explain the transfer of cultural and societal information including morals. He does not propose that this information is transferred genetically.

He doesn't propose that this information is transferred genetically? Please look here.

[Richard Dawkins] then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy.

Note - I'll say again that I don't doubt that many or maybe most morals are learnt, but I don't believe that all of them are.

[charlou]

I don't even think that moral values or rules evolve because I don't think that any moral values or rules are encoded in our genetic make-up.

I use the word 'evolve' for its non-biology definition to convey my understanding that ideas and morals (memes) change (have changed) over time.

evolve

v., e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves.

v.tr.

1. 1. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology. To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.

Along with their sentience, humans have evolved the biological (specifically neurological) ability to conceive of morality (genetic), and humans use that ability to adapt morality to suit or to implement change (evolve 1. 1. and 2., above) in personal, social and cultural moral values mores (memetic).



Edit: changed 'values' to 'mores'

[starr]

This genetic/physical component however would not include any specific moral values or rules. It would merely be a framework within which moral values and rules could develop/imprint/transfer etc.

Is that just an assertion? Do have you any studies that support it?

The bit I highlighted in green in this post? Do you have any studies that support the genetic inheritance of any specific moral values or rules? If so what are the specific moral values or rules you are talking about that are genetically transferred?

Richard Dawkins talks about the transfer of moral or cultural information in terms of his theory of memetics. I don't know a lot about memetics, but I do know it's considered controversial. It certainly does not have the same standing in the scientific community as the theory of evolution. Memetics is an analogous theory that Dawkins has come up with to explain the transfer of cultural and societal information including morals. He does not propose that this information is transferred genetically.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/posting ... 8&p=254102#

He doesn't propose that this information is transferred genetically? Please look here.

[Richard Dawkins] then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy.

Note - I'll say again that I don't doubt that many or maybe most morals are learnt, but I don't believe that all of them are.

I think it might help if you provide a bit more information about the morals that you believe are not learnt?
Perhaps we are not working from the same understanding of what morals are?


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morals

mor·al (môrl, mr-)
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.
1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

I found this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia that defines biological altruism (my highlighting).

In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce. This biological notion of altruism is not identical to the everyday concept. In everyday parlance, an action would only be called ‘altruistic’ if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. But in the biological sense there is no such requirement. Indeed, some of the most interesting examples of biological altruism are found among creatures that are (presumably) not capable of conscious thought at all, e.g. insects. For the biologist, it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action counts as altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.

There is more information in the article if you are interested.

This article I found entitled Misunderstanding Richard Dawkins may also be useful.

First: Dawkins makes it absolutely clear in The Selfish Gene that he is not using the word ‘selfishness’ - or its opposite ‘altruism’ - to refer to the psychological states, emotional or otherwise, of any entity. Rather, as he pointed out in his reply to Midgley (‘In Defence of Selfish Genes’), he gives the word an explicitly behaviouristic definition:

An entity…is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity’s welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behaviour has exactly the opposite effect. ‘Welfare’ is defined as ‘chances of survival’….It is important to realise that the…definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioural, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives. (The Selfish Gene, p. 4)

There are no grounds, then, for supposing, as Midgley did, that the central message of The Selfish Gene has anything to do with the emotional natures of man, animals or genes.

Second: the very idea that Dawkins might think that genes have an emotional nature is so bizarre that it is hard to know what to make of it. One would be tempted to conclude that Midgley didn’t really mean it, except that she started her article in a similar fashion:

Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological. This should not need mentioning, but…The Selfish Gene has succeeded in confusing a number of people about it… (‘Gene Juggling’, p. 439)

Whatever she meant, two things are clear: (a) no reputable biologist thinks that genes have an emotional nature; and (b) genes can be selfish in the sense that Dawkins - and other sociobiologists[2] - use the term.

[charlou]

Richard Dawkins talks about the transfer of moral or cultural information in terms of his theory of memetics. I don't know a lot about memetics, but I do know it's considered controversial. It certainly does not have the same standing in the scientific community as the theory of evolution. Memetics is an analogous theory that Dawkins has come up with to explain the transfer of cultural and societal information including morals. He does not propose that this information is transferred genetically.

The idea of memetics and morality survivability is exactly the means by which I'm hoping to show objective moral standards to exist. Dawkins has repeatedly referred to religion as a virus, but I think this may be a bit off. If we were to view a code of morality to be a bacteria that might be better. Morality (like memes) could be benign, symbiotic, parasitic or some combination there of. Morality can spread by various means. If a morality spreads by symbiotically aiding it's 'host' it is in fact very different from a morality (morality being a specific type of meme, or and aspect of culture) that does so at the expense of its host.

Different behaviours arising out of different levels of awareness or beliefs result in different consequences. Some may be detrimental, some beneficial, some neutral. The concept of morality is irrelevant to that. Life has evolved over billions of years without the concept of morality having any impact, and this continues among most species to this day. It's only our sentience, our ability for language to express our feelings and desires in words that gives us the opportunity to manipulate and adapt our behavioral response to stimuli, and that of others.

[starr]

I don't even think that moral values or rules evolve because I don't think that any moral values or rules are encoded in our genetic make-up.

I use the word 'evolve' for its non-biology definition to convey my understanding that ideas and morals (memes) change (have changed) over time.

evolve

v., e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves.

v.tr.

1. 1. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
2. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).
2. Biology. To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.
3. To give off; emit.

Along with their sentience, humans have evolved the biological (specifically neurological) ability to conceive of morality (genetic), and humans use that ability to adapt morality to suit or to implement change (evolve 1. 1. and 2., above) in personal, social and cultural moral values mores (memetic).



Edit: changed 'values' to 'mores'

Yes 'evolve' can certainly be used in a non-biological context, it's just important that everyone in a discussion is clear what we are talking about when we use the word 'evolve'. I think gooseboy is using 'evolve' in a biological context in regard to morals.

[FBM]

I think gooseboy has a good point. It's obvious to me that most particular instances of moral behavior are taught/learned, but we should rush to conclude that they all are. There could very well be some genetically-influenced behavior that we include under the definition of 'morals'. For example, a while back there was a discussion about people having a natural revulsion towards incest. That's so closely linked to genetic survival that it may very well be encoded.

I don't have a problem with splitting the cake, if the evidence says to. Maybe some/most morals are conventions passed through culture as memes, some have biological sources. Doesn't have to be all-or-nothing...




metaphysics
1.(used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2.(used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3.(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4.(used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

http://www.answers.com/topic/metaphysics

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

[FBM]

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.

Thanks, I'd missed that. I went for the fish.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Thanks, I'd missed that. I went for the fish.

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.