Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Individual apes are certainly objective, in as much as they are individual animals,

This is exactly what I meant. They exist objectively, whether we are aware of them or not, whether we classify them or not. They're subject to evolution so they're not fixed, but they still exist objectively. That's the point of contention I have with your statement, "if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective", bearing in mind you were discussing this from a perspective of if morals have a genetic basis. I'm saying anything that evolves genetically exists objectively even though it isn't fixed. I also explained why I don't include memetic concepts such as 'morals' in that.

Individual apes cannot evolve. Their genotype and phenotype are fixed. They are individuals. Apes as a whole can evolve but in so doing, will not necessarily always be apes.

Yes. Even so, they exist objectively, even though their species are subject to evolution. They don't only exist as concepts of human awareness. Anyone who thinks that's the case is engaging in anthropocentric bias.

Even extinct species existed objectively (that is regardless of our subjective awareness/opinion about them. Even if we never found evidence such as fossils for the existence of specific extinct species and were therefore unaware of their existence those species would still have existed objectively. There could be extinct species we have not stumbled across any evidence for, yet they would still have existed objectively. Species are still being discovered that we were unaware of until their discovery. They existed objectively regardless of our ignorance (lack of knowledge) of their existence.

The concept of species itself is a subjective one. There is no such thing in nature. There are merely individual gene-carriers that are able to interbreed and others that are not, depending on their relative closeness to each other genetically. There are ongoing disputes in taxonomy and phylogenetics about the classification of groups of individuals as species / sub-species / varieties / etc. and into which families they should be inserted. Such definitions are arbitrary for all their precise definitions and all but universal agreement among the scientific community. Species do not exist objectively, neither do any larger groups of species. They are well-defined subjective objects that enable us to make sense of the world, like many other concepts, but their definition is down to us, and not objective.

[charlou]

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.

This is true.

I think our sentience, our self awareness and our awareness of the concept of what is desirable and acceptable among our peers is what informs our ability to behave according to cultural mores (morals). We need time as developing humans (developing from infants into adulthood) to experience the things that will inform our ability to behave according to cultural mores; things such as positive and negative cultural reinforcement, whether overt physically and verbalised cues, or more subtle subconsciously picked up cues. We also need time on a case by case basis to consider our options. Impulsive behaviour is not always socially deemed morally acceptable behaviour. Considered behaviour is not always socially deemed morally acceptable, either.

Hmmm. What sort of morality would you expect to find in the hypothetical (and sometimes real) child raised by wolves, or other wild animals?

I wouldn't expect to find morality in anyone, even a child raised in exceptional circumstances, but I would apply my personal moral value to their behaviour by recognising what I understand is good/bad, socially acceptable/unacceptable in that person's behaviour. Others may or may not agree with my assessment in part or in total.

I think what you mean to ask is whether I think such a child would be aware of morality as a concept? I think, without the benefit of reason via language any notion of good and bad would be totally sensory based and reactionary, geared toward survival. The child's psyche and behaviour will have been affected and shaped by the physical comfort level of his/her experiences.

Even rationally developed humans, when pushed to extremes of physical discomfort threatening survival (real or perceived) will compromise previously accepted morals in order to survive*.


*I asked this earlier ... There are two people locked in a stiflingly warm room. One has a loaded gun and the other one has a litre of water. Neither know how long they'll be locked in the room ... Is there an 'objectively' moral way for either of these people to behave? If so, in what way? And how and why is that behaviour objective?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

This would only hold though if there were a genetic basis for morals. Otherwise, the morality could not be inherited. Obviously, any gene that produced an expressed phenotype of suicidal psychopathy would probably be at a disadvantage in being carried forward - but I would be very surprised to learn of a genetic link to such cases.

Did you read the reference I gave you in the God Delusion? If not, here it is again, on page 214 there is a heading Does our moral sense have a Darwinian origin? Also, an aversion to incest seems to be inbuilt. If this were not the case then people would need to be taught that incest is wrong or they would not think it wrong. I see no evidence that (at least the vast majority of) people need to be taught that incest is wrong. (And just to be completely clear, I am not saying that incest is wrong, just that most people think it is wrong, and this seems to be inbuilt.)

There are genetic behaviour patterns that have the effect of reducing the likelihood of the act of incest. That is not the same as there being a gene, or genes, that make us see it as 'wrong'. As I recall from what was quoted earlier, the mechanism is that close proximity over an extended period reduces the sexual attraction to an individual of the opposite sex (marriage bears this out perfectly!) It is NOT that close proximity over an extended period makes one think that it is wrong to fuck that person. Genetically controlled behaviour, not genetically controlled morality.

You are talking about behaviours here as well. Morals are our perceptions of our potential behaviours as good or bad, not those behaviours themselves. It would be perfectly possible for someone to hold the opinion that murdering his family and then killing himself was not wrong but still never to carry out the act. Just as I don't consider homosexuality to be wrong but I would be unlikely to shag a bloke.

Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you proposing that there's no causal link between morals and behaviours? Do you really think that someone who thinks, say, that murder is moral is no more likely to murder than someone who thinks that it's immoral (everything else being equal of course)?

I am saying that there is not necessarily a causal link between morals and behaviours. If so, why are so many TV evangelists caught with their pants down? They are not (despite our wishes) all outright hypocrites IMO. I think it is more likely that their biological urges proved greater than their genuinely held (albeit deluded) morals. And the reason for that, I posit, is that the former is genetic in origin while the latter is merely memetic.

[Trolldor]

Morality is contemporary art. It has to have an objective origin, there has to be something in our evolutionarily history which created it. It does not, however, make it objectively good or bad. Better or worse for survival are not 'good or bad' from any point of view. They have neutral value because whether any one species lives or dies is irrelevant, even if that species (or its predators, or the whole ecosystem on which it depends) thinks differently.

Objective origins do not equate to objective morality, as there is only one way for anything to come about in the universe and that is objectively. There had to be an evolutionary influence, but that does not add value to morality on either the positive or negative. Survival as "good" is a subjcetive view point.

Did you read the reference I gave you in the God Delusion? If not, here it is again, on page 214 there is a heading Does our moral sense have a Darwinian origin? Also, an aversion to incest seems to be inbuilt. If this were not the case then people would need to be taught that incest is wrong or they would not think it wrong.

But it is not "In-built" in every human, and not only that it is not only the 'sick and twisted' but the well-adjusted and harmless who do have consentual relationships with relatives. And these are not as rare as a lot of people would like to think.

[charlou]

Individual apes are certainly objective, in as much as they are individual animals,

This is exactly what I meant. They exist objectively, whether we are aware of them or not, whether we classify them or not. They're subject to evolution so they're not fixed, but they still exist objectively. That's the point of contention I have with your statement, "if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective", bearing in mind you were discussing this from a perspective of if morals have a genetic basis. I'm saying anything that evolves genetically exists objectively even though it isn't fixed. I also explained why I don't include memetic concepts such as 'morals' in that.

Individual apes cannot evolve. Their genotype and phenotype are fixed. They are individuals. Apes as a whole can evolve but in so doing, will not necessarily always be apes.

Yes. Even so, they exist objectively, even though their species are subject to evolution. They don't only exist as concepts of human awareness. Anyone who thinks that's the case is engaging in anthropocentric bias.

Even extinct species existed objectively (that is regardless of our subjective awareness/opinion about them. Even if we never found evidence such as fossils for the existence of specific extinct species and were therefore unaware of their existence those species would still have existed objectively. There could be extinct species we have not stumbled across any evidence for, yet they would still have existed objectively. Species are still being discovered that we were unaware of until their discovery. They existed objectively regardless of our ignorance (lack of knowledge) of their existence.

The concept of species itself is a subjective one. There is no such thing in nature. There are merely individual gene-carriers that are able to interbreed and others that are not, depending on their relative closeness to each other genetically. There are ongoing disputes in taxonomy and phylogenetics about the classification of groups of individuals as species / sub-species / varieties / etc. and into which families they should be inserted. Such definitions are arbitrary for all their precise definitions and all but universal agreement among the scientific community. Species do not exist objectively, neither do any larger groups of species. They are well-defined subjective objects that enable us to make sense of the world, like many other concepts, but their definition is down to us, and not objective.

I know our concepts of things are subjective, XC. I'm saying things that exist, exist regardless of our concept of them, regardless of how we classify or define them. Existence, by definition is objective. And, no, I'm not talking about things which we might conceive of as existing, but things that exist regardless of our concept of their existence.

Morality is a word that denotes a personal bias we apply to what we think and feel (subjective) about behaviours (objective).

[gooseboy]

There are genetic behaviour patterns that have the effect of reducing the likelihood of the act of incest. That is not the same as there being a gene, or genes, that make us see it as 'wrong'. As I recall from what was quoted earlier, the mechanism is that close proximity over an extended period reduces the sexual attraction to an individual of the opposite sex (marriage bears this out perfectly!) It is NOT that close proximity over an extended period makes one think that it is wrong to fuck that person. Genetically controlled behaviour, not genetically controlled morality.

So you're saying that genes can only control behaviours and not morals. That's like saying "The way our taste sensors evolved makes cake taste good and shit taste bad. But that's not why we like to eat cake and not shit - genes can only control our behaviours, not what we think of as good and bad."

I am saying that there is not necessarily a causal link between morals and behaviours. If so, why are so many TV evangelists caught with their pants down? They are not (despite our wishes) all outright hypocrites IMO. I think it is more likely that their biological urges proved greater than their genuinely held (albeit deluded) morals. And the reason for that, I posit, is that the former is genetic in origin while the latter is merely memetic.

TV evangelists get caught with their pants down because they may not actually believe what they are preaching. And although we don't like hypocrisy in others (for good Darwinian reason I would say) that doesn't mean that we necessarily think that hypocrisy in ourselves is wrong (again for good Darwinian reason I would say). Further we may think it's fine to lie about how much we dislike hypocrisy in ourselves because there would be a good Darwinian reason to not want to be exposed as a hypocrite.

And besides which whether morals are genetic or memetic is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not they are able to reproduce themselves. If they can (and memes can) then some will be objectively better at reproducing themselves than others.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Individual apes are certainly objective, in as much as they are individual animals,

This is exactly what I meant. They exist objectively, whether we are aware of them or not, whether we classify them or not. They're subject to evolution so they're not fixed, but they still exist objectively. That's the point of contention I have with your statement, "if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective", bearing in mind you were discussing this from a perspective of if morals have a genetic basis. I'm saying anything that evolves genetically exists objectively even though it isn't fixed. I also explained why I don't include memetic concepts such as 'morals' in that.

Individual apes cannot evolve. Their genotype and phenotype are fixed. They are individuals. Apes as a whole can evolve but in so doing, will not necessarily always be apes.

Yes. Even so, they exist objectively, even though their species are subject to evolution. They don't only exist as concepts of human awareness. Anyone who thinks that's the case is engaging in anthropocentric bias.

Even extinct species existed objectively (that is regardless of our subjective awareness/opinion about them. Even if we never found evidence such as fossils for the existence of specific extinct species and were therefore unaware of their existence those species would still have existed objectively. There could be extinct species we have not stumbled across any evidence for, yet they would still have existed objectively. Species are still being discovered that we were unaware of until their discovery. They existed objectively regardless of our ignorance (lack of knowledge) of their existence.

The concept of species itself is a subjective one. There is no such thing in nature. There are merely individual gene-carriers that are able to interbreed and others that are not, depending on their relative closeness to each other genetically. There are ongoing disputes in taxonomy and phylogenetics about the classification of groups of individuals as species / sub-species / varieties / etc. and into which families they should be inserted. Such definitions are arbitrary for all their precise definitions and all but universal agreement among the scientific community. Species do not exist objectively, neither do any larger groups of species. They are well-defined subjective objects that enable us to make sense of the world, like many other concepts, but their definition is down to us, and not objective.

I know our concepts of things are subjective, XC. I'm saying things that exist, exist regardless of our concept of them, regardless of how we classify or define them. Existence, by definition is objective. And, no, I'm not talking about things which we might conceive of as existing, but things that exist regardless of our concept of their existence.

Individual living things exist (objectively) but species do not, they are merely subjective ways of grouping things together. You have answered me twice now by insisting that because these creatures physically exist, they exist objectively - I have never said otherwise. It is the labels that we tag onto them that I insist are purely subjective. 'Animal'/'mammal'/'primate'/'ape'/'chimpanzee' - all subjective concepts created by the human, scientific community and largely shared by the human race - Bubbles the chimp, however, is an objective being in his own right. He is only a chimpanzee because the subjective, human definition of chimpanzee fits his phenotype.

Morality is a word that denotes a personal bias we apply to what we think and feel (subjective) about behaviours (objective).

Yes. I agree with this. But it doesn't follow from your previous statement. Was it meant to be tagged on here?

[charlou]

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Perhaps I'm not being clear enough?

Just want to say that I do understand what you're saying, lbon. It's clearer when the viewpoint is shared.

Different viewpoints literally mean just that, and I don't think people ever mean to misunderstand or not 'get' the view of another, it takes an actual shift in thinking to achieve understanding, let alone agreement.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There are genetic behaviour patterns that have the effect of reducing the likelihood of the act of incest. That is not the same as there being a gene, or genes, that make us see it as 'wrong'. As I recall from what was quoted earlier, the mechanism is that close proximity over an extended period reduces the sexual attraction to an individual of the opposite sex (marriage bears this out perfectly!) It is NOT that close proximity over an extended period makes one think that it is wrong to fuck that person. Genetically controlled behaviour, not genetically controlled morality.

So you're saying that genes can only control behaviours and not morals. That's like saying "The way our taste sensors evolved makes cake taste good and shit taste bad. But that's not why we like to eat cake and not shit - genes can only control our behaviours, not what we think of as good and bad."

Please don't put words into my mouth. I am not saying that genes can only control behaviours and not morals. I am saying that that is what is happening in the particular example you quoted. (Or, more accurately, the gene is controlling sexual desire for a particular individual - the behaviour is a result of that.) If you have a better example, where a gene demonstrably moderates a person's view of something as either right or wrong, I will happily concede that genes can control morality. Right now I am neutral on the subject, while doubting it.

In your cake/shit example, the genes again do not directly moderate the behaviour, they moderate our perception of the taste of the two item, which in turn leads to the behaviour. The two situations are actually very close - but in neither case are morals directly affected by genes.

I am saying that there is not necessarily a causal link between morals and behaviours. If so, why are so many TV evangelists caught with their pants down? They are not (despite our wishes) all outright hypocrites IMO. I think it is more likely that their biological urges proved greater than their genuinely held (albeit deluded) morals. And the reason for that, I posit, is that the former is genetic in origin while the latter is merely memetic.

TV evangelists get caught with their pants down because they may not actually believe what they are preaching. And although we don't like hypocrisy in others (for good Darwinian reason I would say) that doesn't mean that we necessarily think that hypocrisy in ourselves is wrong (again for good Darwinian reason I would say). Further we may think it's fine to lie about how much we dislike hypocrisy in ourselves because there would be a good Darwinian reason to not want to be exposed as a hypocrite.

Leaving aside whether the TV evangelists actually believe what they preach, I think it is fair to say that, in at least some of the cases, they perform the acts despite the fact that their personal morality says that it is wrong to do so. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

And besides which whether morals are genetic or memetic is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not they are able to reproduce themselves. If they can (and memes can) then some will be objectively better at reproducing themselves than others.

Memes cannot reproduce in the same manner as genes. A child separated at birth from its parents will share none of their memes. Memes reproduce by instruction and reinforcement. However, merely because a child has been brought up to believe that fucking members of the same sex is evil, that won't necessarily stop them from doing it when they get older, should they be that way inclined. At least as far as behaviour goes, we are able to set aside our genetic and memetic predispositions (otherwise, the most shocking thing on the internet would be Two Girls, One Cake - do you see what I did there? )

[charlou]

Individual apes are certainly objective, in as much as they are individual animals,

This is exactly what I meant. They exist objectively, whether we are aware of them or not, whether we classify them or not. They're subject to evolution so they're not fixed, but they still exist objectively. That's the point of contention I have with your statement, "if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective", bearing in mind you were discussing this from a perspective of if morals have a genetic basis. I'm saying anything that evolves genetically exists objectively even though it isn't fixed. I also explained why I don't include memetic concepts such as 'morals' in that.

Individual apes cannot evolve. Their genotype and phenotype are fixed. They are individuals. Apes as a whole can evolve but in so doing, will not necessarily always be apes.

Yes. Even so, they exist objectively, even though their species are subject to evolution. They don't only exist as concepts of human awareness. Anyone who thinks that's the case is engaging in anthropocentric bias.

Even extinct species existed objectively (that is regardless of our subjective awareness/opinion about them. Even if we never found evidence such as fossils for the existence of specific extinct species and were therefore unaware of their existence those species would still have existed objectively. There could be extinct species we have not stumbled across any evidence for, yet they would still have existed objectively. Species are still being discovered that we were unaware of until their discovery. They existed objectively regardless of our ignorance (lack of knowledge) of their existence.

The concept of species itself is a subjective one. There is no such thing in nature. There are merely individual gene-carriers that are able to interbreed and others that are not, depending on their relative closeness to each other genetically. There are ongoing disputes in taxonomy and phylogenetics about the classification of groups of individuals as species / sub-species / varieties / etc. and into which families they should be inserted. Such definitions are arbitrary for all their precise definitions and all but universal agreement among the scientific community. Species do not exist objectively, neither do any larger groups of species. They are well-defined subjective objects that enable us to make sense of the world, like many other concepts, but their definition is down to us, and not objective.

I know our concepts of things are subjective, XC. I'm saying things that exist, exist regardless of our concept of them, regardless of how we classify or define them. Existence, by definition is objective. And, no, I'm not talking about things which we might conceive of as existing, but things that exist regardless of our concept of their existence.

Individual living things exist (objectively) but species do not, they are merely subjective ways of grouping things together. You have answered me twice now by insisting that because these creatures physically exist, they exist objectively - I have never said otherwise. It is the labels that we tag onto them that I insist are purely subjective. 'Animal'/'mammal'/'primate'/'ape'/'chimpanzee' - all subjective concepts created by the human, scientific community and largely shared by the human race - Bubbles the chimp, however, is an objective being in his own right. He is only a chimpanzee because the subjective, human definition of chimpanzee fits his phenotype.

It seems we are agreed, then. I was clarifying my position because you seemed to be under the impression that I think how we conceptualise things is objective when I have never said so and have, in fact, been saying the opposite, and I've tried to make that distinction even more clear from the moment you questioned my view of it.

Going back to your statement, "if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective", with the assumption that morals have a genetic basis, I thought you meant "if morals can evolve, therefore they are not fixed and they are not objective", and so I was disagreeing that anything with a genetic basis and which evolves is therefore not fixed and not objective. If that isn't what you meant, then I misunderstood you and can understand why you went on to misunderstand my argument as a consequence. So, did you mean it that way or did I misunderstand you? (If that is what you meant, then I stand by my argument.)

If we can clear that up it might help us move forward.

Morality is a word that denotes a personal bias we apply to what we think and feel (subjective) about behaviours (objective).

Yes. I agree with this. But it doesn't follow from your previous statement. Was it meant to be tagged on here?

Only insofar as I'm once again making a distinction between things which exist (objective) and concepts (subjective).

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Going back to your statement, "if morals can evolve, they are not fixed and objective", with the assumption that morals have a genetic basis, I thought you meant "if morals can evolve, therefore they are not fixed and they are not objective", and so I was disagreeing that anything with a genetic basis is therefore not objective. If that isn't what you meant, then I misunderstood you and can understand why you went on to misunderstand my argument as a consequence. So, did you mean it that way or did I misunderstand you? (If that is what you meant, then I stand by my argument.)

You read my statement correctly. However, I don't think you quite appreciated my meaning. Here is my implied logic: -

1. For a set of morals to be objective implies, by the usual definitions used by philosophers, that there exist absolute, inviolable rights and wrongs that apply to all of mankind.
2. For morality to be genetic in origin implies, by what we know of the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, that they are as subject to change and evolution as any other genetically governed feature. Furthermore, we can deduce that there will be genetic variation in the population.

1 and 2 are mutually incompatible, hence a genetic basis for morality implies that morality has to be subjective.

Where, I think, we differ, is that you have taken the objective, physical fact of the genes as being equal to an objective existence for the morality that they represent. This sort of applies but only in the specific case of the individual in question - if you like, it is a different definition of objectivity to the one in 1 - an objective basis for individual morality.

Having said all of that, I would be extremely surprised to find any hard and fast moral rules encoded in our genes. I would not expect to see anything stronger than a predisposition in a particular direction that is further affected by environmental factors - similar to the way in which there is a partial genetic basis for some cancers, manic-depression and Alzheimer's - which only increase the chances of developing the condition - it doesn't always develop.

[gooseboy]

There are genetic behaviour patterns that have the effect of reducing the likelihood of the act of incest. That is not the same as there being a gene, or genes, that make us see it as 'wrong'. As I recall from what was quoted earlier, the mechanism is that close proximity over an extended period reduces the sexual attraction to an individual of the opposite sex (marriage bears this out perfectly!) It is NOT that close proximity over an extended period makes one think that it is wrong to fuck that person. Genetically controlled behaviour, not genetically controlled morality.

So you're saying that genes can only control behaviours and not morals. That's like saying "The way our taste sensors evolved makes cake taste good and shit taste bad. But that's not why we like to eat cake and not shit - genes can only control our behaviours, not what we think of as good and bad."

Please don't put words into my mouth.

I do not believe that I have done so. You said "Genetically controlled behaviour, not genetically controlled morality." and I was refuting this by giving an analogy.

I am not saying that genes can only control behaviours and not morals. I am saying that that is what is happening in the particular example you quoted. (Or, more accurately, the gene is controlling sexual desire for a particular individual - the behaviour is a result of that.) If you have a better example, where a gene demonstrably moderates a person's view of something as either right or wrong, I will happily concede that genes can control morality. Right now I am neutral on the subject, while doubting it.

I am a bit confused by what you are saying. In the case of incest there is a mechanism (encoded in our genes) whereby most people will never fall in love with people that they were in close proximity with during their own childhood. The result of this is a lower rate of incest than would otherwise be the case. I say that the moral most of us have that incest is wrong is a direct result of this mechanism, and could therefore be said to be encoded in our genes. I definitely don't think that the moral of incest is wrong needs to be taught, so I don't believe that it's encode in a meme.

In your cake/shit example, the genes again do not directly moderate the behaviour, they moderate our perception of the taste of the two item, which in turn leads to the behaviour. The two situations are actually very close - but in neither case are morals directly affected by genes.

I agree that the two situations are very close, that's why I gave it as an analogy. I believe it is our genes that make us not want to eat shit. To put it more clearly, our genes give us our tastes which moderate our behaviour. In the same way our genes give us our morals which moderate our behaviour.

Edit to add that I don't believe that genes are the only things that give us our morals or tastes.

Leaving aside whether the TV evangelists actually believe what they preach, I think it is fair to say that, in at least some of the cases, they perform the acts despite the fact that their personal morality says that it is wrong to do so. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

OK. I believe that even a completely amoral person can recognize morals. This is not because they will be moral themselves, but because they need to be able to judge whether or not they can trust other people. Obviously placing your trust in amoral people is going to be to your detriment so there is a clear Darwinian reason for this.

Memes cannot reproduce in the same manner as genes. A child separated at birth from its parents will share none of their memes. Memes reproduce by instruction and reinforcement. However, merely because a child has been brought up to believe that fucking members of the same sex is evil, that won't necessarily stop them from doing it when they get older, should they be that way inclined. At least as far as behaviour goes, we are able to set aside our genetic and memetic predispositions (otherwise, the most shocking thing on the internet would be Two Girls, One Cake - do you see what I did there? )

I don't think the method of reproduction is relevant, only that memes can reproduce, and can thus be objectively judged by how well they reproduce. (Just to cover my arse I'll say it one more time, a moral that is good reproducing itself is only good in the context of it's good at reproducing itself.)

I don't doubt that people can be taught morals that they have a genetic bias against. Hence people can be taught that suicide bombing is moral.

And there's nothing quite like two girls and one cake. Is it my birthday?

[gooseboy]

1. For a set of morals to be objective implies, by the usual definitions used by philosophers, that there exist absolute, inviolable rights and wrongs that apply to all of mankind.

This I still don't understand. I can see how absolute may imply objective, but I can't see that the reverse is true. Can someone please point me to a definition of 'objective morality' that says that it is the same as absolute morality?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I am a bit confused by what you are saying. In the case of incest there is a mechanism (encoded in our genes) whereby most people will never fall in love with people that they were in close proximity with during their own childhood.

Yes. Although I would amend your language a little and say, "There is a genetic mechanism that reduces the chance of two people raised as children in close proximity from forming a romantic attachment in later life."

The result of this is a lower rate of incest than would otherwise be the case.

True. Although it does not rule it out altogether.

I say that the moral most of us have that incest is wrong is a direct result of this mechanism, and could therefore be said to be encoded in our genes.

Can you explain how a mechanism that reduces the chance of romantic attachment leads to an idea in our brains that incest is wrong? I cannot understand how this biological mechanism can occur. The genetic mechanism above does not work by putting any such idea into your head, it merely stops you falling in love with your sister/brother. The jump from one to the other requires explanation.

The same mechanism works equally well with non-related children with whom one is raised. Do we similarly acquire a moral sense that fucking non-relatives in the same household is wrong? If not, why not? You have just said that it flows naturally from the genetic mechanism.

I definitely don't think that the moral of incest is wrong needs to be taught, so I don't believe that it's encode in a meme.

I think you are wrong here.

Incest increases the chances of genetic abnormalities - it therefore follows that creatures that avoid incest will increase their chances of producing healthy offspring. For this reason, biological mechanisms have evolved that serve to reduce its occurrence. However, I have yet to see evidence that any moral aversion to committing incest is similarly transmitted genetically.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

1. For a set of morals to be objective implies, by the usual definitions used by philosophers, that there exist absolute, inviolable rights and wrongs that apply to all of mankind.

This I still don't understand. I can see how absolute may imply objective, but I can't see that the reverse is true. Can someone please point me to a definition of 'objective morality' that says that it is the same as absolute morality?

Not easily! I took the title of this thread from a post by Andrew - linked in the OP. Personally, I would have phrased it differently.

Here is a definition of Objectivity (which i think has already been posted)

Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created.

So, by that definition, we are asking here whether it is possible for some moral standards to exist outside of any single human's mind.