Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[gooseboy]

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."

OK. In the case of me the mechanism makes the very thought of shagging my sister repulsive. I'm sure I'm not alone here.

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.

Agreed. The same with the shit, someone could still eat shit if they forced themself to.

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.

I don't know the mechanism. All I know is that the very thought of shagging my sister is completely disgusting which is why I think it's wrong. (Note, if other people wanted to shag their siblings then I wouldn't get on a soap box and call it a moral outrage, but I would still find the thought of it disgusting.)

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.

Agreed. Talking from possibly invalid personal experience I find none the girls I knew as a child sexually attractive (not completely true, I think some of them are hot in a way, but I'm not the least bit romantically attracted to them). The thought of shagging them is far less repulsive than the thought of shagging my sister, probably because we didn't grow up in as close proximity as I did to my sister.

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.

I have to ask. Do you have a sister? If so did have to be taught not to want to shag her?

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.

I think that we've evolved an aversion to incest which makes us think that incest is wrong. All a moral is something that we think of as right or wrong, isn't it?

[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?

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.

(My bold). I would agree with this statement, but I'm a long way from thinking that "objective" means "absolute".

[starr]

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.

Thank you Charlou, I appreciate that.

I was starting to think I may need to issue a babel fish with my posts....

[starr]

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.

Further down the page in the same wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivit ... bjectivity

Objectivity and subjectivity

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is one that is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places, or for certain people.

EDIT to add more from the same wiki page:

Objectivity in ethics
Ethical subjectivism
See also: David Hume, non-cognitivism, and Subjectivism

The term, "ethical subjectivism," covers two distinct theories in ethics. According to cognitive versions of ethical subjectivism, the truth of moral statements depends upon people's values, attitudes, feelings, or beliefs. Some forms of cognitivist ethical subjectivism can be counted as forms of realism, others are forms of anti-realism. David Hume is a foundational figure for cognitive ethical subjectivism. On a standard interpretation of his theory, a trait of character counts as a moral virtue when it evokes a sentiment of approbation in a sympathetic, informed, and rational human observer. Similarly, Roderick Firth's ideal observer theory held that right acts are those that an impartial, rational observer would approve of. William James, another ethical subjectivist, held that an end is good (to or for a person) just in case it is desired by that person (see also ethical egoism). According to non-cognitive versions of ethical subjectivism, such as emotivism, prescriptivism, and expressivism, ethical statements cannot be true or false, at all: rather, they are expressions of personal feelings or commands. For example, on A. J. Ayer's emotivism, the statement, "Murder is wrong" is equivalent in meaning to the emotive ejaculation, "Murder, Boo!"

Ethical objectivism

According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe (or fail to describe) a mind-independent reality. When they describe it accurately, they are true --- no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. When they fail to describe this mind-independent moral reality, they are false --- no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. There are many versions of ethical objectivism, including various religious views of morality, Platonistic intuitionism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, and certain forms of ethical egoism[citation needed] and contractualism. Note that Platonists define ethical objectivism in an even more narrow way, so that it requires the existence of intrinsic value. Consequently, they reject the idea that contractualists or egoists could be ethical objectivists.

[gooseboy]

Objectivity and subjectivity

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is one that is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places, or for certain people.

So if moral A is better at reproducing itself than moral B in a particular environment then this would be an objective fact. It would remain true everywhere, and it would be independent of human thought or feelings. I don't see your point.

EDIT to add more from the same wiki page:

Ethical objectivism

According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe (or fail to describe) a mind-independent reality. When they describe it accurately, they are true --- no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. When they fail to describe this mind-independent moral reality, they are false --- no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. There are many versions of ethical objectivism, including various religious views of morality, Platonistic intuitionism, Kantianism, utilitarianism, and certain forms of ethical egoism[citation needed] and contractualism. Note that Platonists define ethical objectivism in an even more narrow way, so that it requires the existence of intrinsic value. Consequently, they reject the idea that contractualists or egoists could be ethical objectivists.

This carries a little more weight, but only a little. If one believes that morals are purely objective then you end up with a philosophy that is similar to someone who believes in moral absolutes. But I can't see that it implies that 'objective' is the same as 'absolute' in morals - at best it implies that 'objective morals' is usually (or sometimes - I don't know) used to mean 'purely objective morals' which is similar to 'absolute morals'.

I still can't see that it adds any weight to your argument. I still maintain that morals aren't purely subjective, and that this is far from saying that morals are absolute.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So if moral A is better at reproducing itself than moral B in a particular environment then this would be an objective fact. It would remain true everywhere, and it would be independent of human thought or feelings. I don't see your point.

Put simply, no.

Firstly, you say "in a particular environment" and then extend this to imply objective truth for all humans. The morals of Amish don't hold for all humans but they are prevalent in their environment.

Secondly, you say "it would be independent of human thought or feelings" when talking about a prevalent case. Moral A is better at passing itself on than moral B but that does not mean that moral B is necessarily absent from the population. For any given human, either moral A or moral B could be present (or even some other moral not considered in your example.) Thus, it is NOT independent of human experience but holds true only for some humans - even if that is an overwhelming majority.

What we are trying to establish (or at least discuss the arguments for and against) is whether there is a morality that exists beyond individual, human experience. Your argument merely asserts that there are some moral choices upon which the majority are agreed - this is a long way from objective morality.

[FBM]

I'm just going to take Pyrrho's approach on this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I'm just going to take Pyrrho's approach on this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho

Which is basically... chill!

[FBM]

I'm just going to take Pyrrho's approach on this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrho

Which is basically... chill!

Yeah. Militant agnosticism: "I don't know and neither do you". I just got a book about Pyrrhonism. Good shit, that.

Edit: Or it appears to be good...

[Drewish]

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.

I used to believe in God, now I know better. If that's not memetic evolution, then I don't know what is.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

I used to believe in God, now I know better. If that's not memetic evolution, then I don't know what is.

More accurately memetic mutation. If you pass that lack of belief on and it successfully replicates down the generations - then it is evolution.

[Drewish]

Now, the question is whether that's an advantageous adaptation. If realizing that Sky Man doesn't exist is objectively better for one's survival and /or procreation then one would be able to say that an aspect of objective morality may be not believing in crazy bullshit.

[Trolldor]

Now, the question is whether that's an advantageous adaptation. If realizing that Sky Man doesn't exist is objectively better for one's survival and /or procreation then one would be able to say that an aspect of objective morality may be not believing in crazy bullshit.

Morality has nothing to do with whether one believes in a deity or not. They may be related via scriptures, but as ideas or principles they are not.

[Drewish]

One's understanding of reality has no impact on the code of conduct or general rules by which they live their life?

[Trolldor]

One's understanding of reality has no impact on the code of conduct or general rules by which they live their life?

There is no reason it should. A nihilist can have precisely the same morals as someone who adheres to the principles of fate and destiny.