Morality: Does it have an Objective Standard?

[Defender of Truth]

This is a thread where we can discuss whether morality has an Objective standard, or a Subjective standard.

I don't think anyone would claim that there is no such thing as morality, but if someone wishes to, they may do so here.

Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

[Gonzo]

Love

In romantic love, when two people have sex, oxytocin is released, which helps bond the relationship. According to researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, the hormone oxytocin has been shown to be "associated with the ability to maintain healthy interpersonal relationships and healthy psychological boundaries with other people." When it is released during orgasm, it begins creating an emotional bond -- the more sex, the greater the bond. Oxytocin is also associated with mother/infant bonding, uterine contractions during labor in childbirth and the "let down" reflex necessary for breastfeeding.

Vasopressin, an antidiuretic hormone, is another chemical that has been associated with the formation of long-term, monogamous relationships (see "Are We Alone in Love?"). Dr. Fisher believes that oxytocin and vasopressin interfere with the dopamine and norepinephrine pathways, which might explain why passionate love fades as attachment grows.

Endorphins, the body's natural painkillers, also play a key role in long-term relationships. They produce a general sense of well-being, including feeling soothed, peaceful and secure. Like dopamine and norepinephrine, endorphins are released during sex; they are also released during physical contact, exercise and other activities. According to Michel Odent of London's Primal Health Research Center, endorphins induce a "drug-like dependency."

From here

Experiment done on Voles

Why do voles fall in love?
The details of what is going on — the vole story, as it were — is a fascinating one. When prairie voles have sex, two hormones called oxytocin and vasopressin are released. If the release of these hormones is blocked, prairie-voles' sex becomes a fleeting affair, like that normally enjoyed by their rakish montane cousins. Conversely, if prairie voles are given an injection of the hormones, but prevented from having sex, they will still form a preference for their chosen partner. In other words, researchers can make prairie voles fall in love — or whatever the vole equivalent of this is — with an injection.

A clue to what is happening — and how these results might bear on the human condition — was found when this magic juice was given to the montane vole: it made no difference. It turns out that the faithful prairie vole has receptors for oxytocin and vasopressin in brain regions associated with reward and reinforcement, whereas the montane vole does not. The question is, do humans (another species in the 3% of allegedly monogamous mammals) have brains similar to prairie voles?

To answer that question you need to dig a little deeper. As Larry Young, a researcher into social attachment at Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, explains, the brain has a reward system designed to make voles (and people and other animals) do what they ought to. Without it, they might forget to eat, drink and have sex — with disastrous results. That animals continue to do these things is because they make them feel good. And they feel good because of the release of a chemical called dopamine into the brain. Sure enough, when a female prairie vole mates, there is a 50% increase in the level of dopamine in the reward centre of her brain.

Similarly, when a male rat has sex it feels good to him because of the dopamine. He learns that sex is enjoyable, and seeks out more of it based on how it happened the first time. But, in contrast to the prairie vole, at no time do rats learn to associate sex with a particular female. Rats are not monogamous.

This is where the vasopressin and oxytocin come in. They are involved in parts of the brain that help to pick out the salient features used to identify individuals. If the gene for oxytocin is knocked out of a mouse before birth, that mouse will become a social amnesiac and have no memory of the other mice it meets. The same is true if the vasopressin gene is knocked out.

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html


It's just chemicals in your brain...

[Artheos]

It seems that there is widespread—if not universal—agreement on the notion that morality is objective, not subjective. Let me clarify. I do not mean to say that no one argues that morality is subjective. As a matter of fact, some do. What I mean is that virtually all of us, if we were to ponder for just a short while what a world without objective morality would be like, would agree that morality is an objective commodity. I think this is best seen by simply taking note of what it would mean for all morality to be subjective.

Let's imagine, for purposes of argument, that morality really were a strictly subjective commodity. What would follow from this? Well, first of all, this would mean that the moral statements we all make would be exactly like our judgements about the way things taste. There would be no question of their being right or wrong. Their truth, or shall we say correctness, would depend strictly upon the attitude, opinion or belief of the person making them. He or she is the individual subject.

I've read the whole thread but this is all I really feel the need to pick out so far. The bolded portion is correct, our ideas of morality are exactly like opinions... because they are. We each have our own idea of what is right and wrong, there is no 'objective morality'. We may like for there to be one, but that doesn't mean a thing. We don't even have a reason for believing that there might be one, let alone any evidence for such a statement.

Given what you've said then, would you believe it to be wrong for someone else to subject you to their moral perspective?

edited 'from' to 'for' - Artheos

[Angel]

This is a thread where we can discuss whether morality has an Objective standard, or a Subjective standard.

I don't think anyone would claim that there is no such thing as morality, but if someone wishes to, they may do so here.

Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

I know that morals exists but what I don't know are which morals are *truly* or *objectively* good and which ones are not. I don't even know if objective morals exists or have to exists to begin with since I see no proven nor provable basis for them. For all we know, morals are suppose to be subjective by nature in that they are human constructs.

I also don't accept some of the theories for objective morals that don't necessarily involve human interference, such as biology/evolution. Mankind does not have a moral standard that is the same for everyone and it's not as if we can even prove which morals are *truly* good to begin with. If the purpose of objective morals is to keep order and the good of mankind then I don't see how there can be contradictory moral standards amongst different cultures and even people since that can cause chaos and conflicts. Saying something is good for a culture is not good enough since that culture has to interact with other cultures and while one culture may fight against the other culture thinking it's for good of their culture, but for mankind or every culture overall, it may be bad because there is chaos and conflict. You don't even have to reference history to see this if you just simply look at the current state of the world that we're in now.

I also disagree that simply having a purpose or a good definition for morality proves objective morals and the basis for them. Besides not always being able to extract specific standards from the general purpose or meaning of morality, this standard leaves out the *oughtness* factor to morality which would also speak for the *basis* of morality. With a definition and a purpose, I can understand what morals are and the reason for morality but what I don't have is a proven or objective reason to show that I ought to be good, especially when there are evils in the world that are not of man's doing but are nature's doing. One common response that I get for why we should do good is for our order and survival but I've taken that assertion one step back and asked do we have to (as a moral imperative) survive and have order (especially in light of all the natural evils in the world)? If so, I'd like proof of that, if provable. Another response I get is that society tells me I should be good or else I'll get punished. Society is a human construct or a sum of shared human construct so does that really constitute as objective or logical proof, especially when the standards I'm being judged by lack proof themselves?

On a last note, shouldn't objective morality be defined as morals that are *truly* good in reality *AND that everyone should or ought to follow*? I ask for this because it wouldn't make sense to have morals if we don't have to follow them; but what I'm asking for are objective morals which would also involve showing objective oughtness or showing objectively, that they should be followed which I believe would also go towards an objective basis for morality.

[scourge99]

This is a thread where we can discuss whether morality has an Objective standard, or a Subjective standard.

I don't think anyone would claim that there is no such thing as morality, but if someone wishes to, they may do so here.

Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

I don't know if objective morality exists or not. I don't know how anyone would go about proving it one way or another without making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions.

What I do know is that societies can have vastly different and extremely similar morals. These similarities and differences can be brought about by different individual and collective goals, instincts, and other catalytic pressures. I've yet to see any evidence for some aspect of morality originating in and of itself.

I would argue that there is are probably advantages to different morals. That is, there are optimal moralities. But once again these are dependent on individual goals; they are subjective.