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.

[Defender of Truth]

Sorry this reply is so late.

Defender of Truth wrote:
Thank you for explaining your view. I understand it better, but I was unclear so I did some research on that certain viewpoint. I'm going to sum up what I think you're saying and tell me if I'm wrong.

Your model argues that moral awareness is a biological adaptation, a product of the evolutionary process. All humans have moral awareness because this awareness is of biological worth. We need it to survive. Your view states that the moral awareness we all have is just like our hands, feet, and teeth. According to the theory of evolution, these developed over the long evolutionary process as an adaptation making it possible for us to survive. Without them we couldn't stay alive. We would have been one of the species that went extinct (all of this is according to the theory of evolution, I don't represent this view. I'm just making sure that's clear). We couldn't survive without moral awareness any better than we could without hands, feet, or teeth. People holding this view challenge us to think about a group of people like us living togther who had no sense whatsoever that it was morally wrong to kill other humans for no reason, or to be dishonest as a normal way of living, or to act unfairly most of the time. Those people would be extinct before long.
According to you, man needs morals as an aid to human survival and reproduction. Not only that, but it's pretty clear that everyone has moral awareness. If we didn't get it by simply agreeing on it (which we didn't, that would be subjective) then we must have come upon it some other way. Your model says that this moral awareness developed as a biological adaption no less than our other adaptations. It's because of this that we have feelings of fairness.

Is that accurate? (It's logical, but I'm sure I can find something wrong with it)

It is reasonably accurate. Remember that individual survival is unimportant in evolution. It is which genetic traits increase the probability of successfully reproducing.

If our moral convictions really do stem from the need to do whatever promotes the species, then shouldn't we have the moral conviction that it is right, even our duty, to exterminate the sick, the aged, the handicapped? You would have to agree, these people don't promote the survival of the human race. In fact, they're a drain on it. They use up resources we all need to survive. They themselves contribute nothing to the survival of our race. And wouldn't it be our duty to get rid of anyone who might contaminate the gene pool—say, people with hereditary chromosomal defects? Shouldn't we at least prohibit them from reproducing? But we as humans have not and do not regard these harsh measures as our duty. In fact, we have the opposite convictions. We would condemn anyone who did them.

What I'm asking is whether your evolutionary model could account for the moral convictions we all in fact do have toward these groups. After all, that is what your model is claiming to do-- account for the moral convictions we find among human beings. Does your model account for the strong moral sense we humans have that it is wrong in the extreme to harm the weak, the aged, and the handicapped?
What I'm saying is that there is nothing in a survival-based morality which would produce this strong moral conviction we have against the very actions that would promote the survival of the species.

Something else troubles me about your evolutionary model. I wonder if anyone really belives your model. I know you say you believe your explanation, but do you really believe it in the sense that you are willing to live as though it were true? And yes, it does matter. You see, if you don't believe it this way, then your belief is only an academic theory which you aren't really willing to follow. It would be like a person who claimed not to believe in gravity but was not willing to jump out of a third-floor window. She says she believes it, but she really doesn't.
Now, if your evolutionary model is true, then there seems to be no basis for condemning any action at all. There are certain actions that are abhorrent to all of us. Like rape, stealing, assault, and deception. We condemn these regularly. But if your model is true, how can we? Think of it this way. Suppose we discovered beings on another planet. Would rape be wrong for them? On your model these beings have an entirely different evolutionary history from ours. I ask this question because a philosopher who advocates your evolutionary model, Michael Ruse, uses this very example. His answer to the question is that rape would not necessarily be wrong for other beings on other planets. In his view, although the immorality of rape is a human constant, we cannot thereby think that it would be a constant for other organisms and extraterrestrials. On the evolutionary model, we cannot assume that extraterrestrials' morality would be like ours. It all depends on how their particular evolutionary process went. Suppose these extraterrestrials landed on planet earth and were sufficiently like us that they were able to have sexual relations with us. My question is, how ought they to act toward us? Suppose they decide to begin raping humans at will. And suppose we complain that rape is wrong and that they should stop. They would have a very ready response. They could simply say, “Your moral ideas are only a product of your evolutionary process. They are only like your other adaptations. Any other meaning is an illusion. It doesn't affect us.� And if morality is strictly an evolutionary product, they would be right.
Or suppose they were as superior to us as we are to cattle, and they begain using us for food or as laboring animals. What could we possibly tell them in this evolutionary model to show them they are wrong? They have their own system of morality, a product of their own evolutionary development. Why should they adopt human morality?
My point is that if morality is only an evolutionary product, then raping and killing humans is not really wrong. We just have the conviction, the feeling, that they are wrong. But in that case the extraterrestrials would be fully justified in ignoring our moral sentiments if they so chose. We would have nothing to say to them.
But the real point that we must not miss here is that on your model, these acts are no more wrong for us than they are for these extraterrestrials. The fact that we are human does not make an act any more wrong in itself. It just means that we happen to have the feeling that it is wrong because of our evolutionary development.
Now the more important question arises. Why shouldn't we rape, and maim, and steal, and defraud, and do anything else that catches our fancy? We may have a feeling that these acts are wrong. That feeling may even be very strong. But on this view it is simply a biological adaptation inculcated into us over millions of years. It's a feeling, nothing more. There is no reason to regard any act as really right or wrong. In fact, on your evolutionary model it may even be possible to argue that rape is ethically good, because it propogates the species. The view you are advocating has no way of condemning rape, or anything else for that matter, as really wrong. It might even sanction something as awful as rape. My question is, are you willing to live through these terrible acts aren't really wrong, they just seem so?

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.

So you believe that I can steal your wallet, then shoot you in the head, and have not done anything wrong. You can not condemn me anymore than "I don't like it", because it's really not wrong (according to you). My standard doesn't include murder and theft as morally wrong, therefore for me it's not wrong. You're denying yourself the right to claim that anything is morally wrong.
I'd love to see you put that view to practice.

[TheMessage]

If our moral convictions really do stem from the need to do whatever promotes the species, then shouldn't we have the moral conviction that it is right, even our duty, to exterminate the sick, the aged, the handicapped? You would have to agree, these people don't promote the survival of the human race. In fact, they're a drain on it. They use up resources we all need to survive. They themselves contribute nothing to the survival of our race. And wouldn't it be our duty to get rid of anyone who might contaminate the gene pool—say, people with hereditary chromosomal defects? Shouldn't we at least prohibit them from reproducing? But we as humans have not and do not regard these harsh measures as our duty. In fact, we have the opposite convictions. We would condemn anyone who did them.

What I'm asking is whether your evolutionary model could account for the moral convictions we all in fact do have toward these groups. After all, that is what your model is claiming to do-- account for the moral convictions we find among human beings. Does your model account for the strong moral sense we humans have that it is wrong in the extreme to harm the weak, the aged, and the handicapped?
What I'm saying is that there is nothing in a survival-based morality which would produce this strong moral conviction we have against the very actions that would promote the survival of the species.

Something else troubles me about your evolutionary model. I wonder if anyone really belives your model. I know you say you believe your explanation, but do you really believe it in the sense that you are willing to live as though it were true? And yes, it does matter. You see, if you don't believe it this way, then your belief is only an academic theory which you aren't really willing to follow. It would be like a person who claimed not to believe in gravity but was not willing to jump out of a third-floor window. She says she believes it, but she really doesn't.
Now, if your evolutionary model is true, then there seems to be no basis for condemning any action at all. There are certain actions that are abhorrent to all of us. Like rape, stealing, assault, and deception. We condemn these regularly. But if your model is true, how can we? Think of it this way. Suppose we discovered beings on another planet. Would rape be wrong for them? On your model these beings have an entirely different evolutionary history from ours. I ask this question because a philosopher who advocates your evolutionary model, Michael Ruse, uses this very example. His answer to the question is that rape would not necessarily be wrong for other beings on other planets. In his view, although the immorality of rape is a human constant, we cannot thereby think that it would be a constant for other organisms and extraterrestrials. On the evolutionary model, we cannot assume that extraterrestrials' morality would be like ours. It all depends on how their particular evolutionary process went. Suppose these extraterrestrials landed on planet earth and were sufficiently like us that they were able to have sexual relations with us. My question is, how ought they to act toward us? Suppose they decide to begin raping humans at will. And suppose we complain that rape is wrong and that they should stop. They would have a very ready response. They could simply say, “Your moral ideas are only a product of your evolutionary process. They are only like your other adaptations. Any other meaning is an illusion. It doesn't affect us.� And if morality is strictly an evolutionary product, they would be right.
Or suppose they were as superior to us as we are to cattle, and they begain using us for food or as laboring animals. What could we possibly tell them in this evolutionary model to show them they are wrong? They have their own system of morality, a product of their own evolutionary development. Why should they adopt human morality?
My point is that if morality is only an evolutionary product, then raping and killing humans is not really wrong. We just have the conviction, the feeling, that they are wrong. But in that case the extraterrestrials would be fully justified in ignoring our moral sentiments if they so chose. We would have nothing to say to them.
But the real point that we must not miss here is that on your model, these acts are no more wrong for us than they are for these extraterrestrials. The fact that we are human does not make an act any more wrong in itself. It just means that we happen to have the feeling that it is wrong because of our evolutionary development.
Now the more important question arises. Why shouldn't we rape, and maim, and steal, and defraud, and do anything else that catches our fancy? We may have a feeling that these acts are wrong. That feeling may even be very strong. But on this view it is simply a biological adaptation inculcated into us over millions of years. It's a feeling, nothing more. There is no reason to regard any act as really right or wrong. In fact, on your evolutionary model it may even be possible to argue that rape is ethically good, because it propogates the species. The view you are advocating has no way of condemning rape, or anything else for that matter, as really wrong. It might even sanction something as awful as rape. My question is, are you willing to live through these terrible acts aren't really wrong, they just seem so?

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.

So you believe that I can steal your wallet, then shoot you in the head, and have not done anything wrong. You can not condemn me anymore than "I don't like it", because it's really not wrong (according to you). My standard doesn't include murder and theft as morally wrong, therefore for me it's not wrong. You're denying yourself the right to claim that anything is morally wrong.
I'd love to see you put that view to practice.

As the whole point about evolution and morality, yes the current model accounts for our attidues towards those who don't contribute. It's a misfiring of sorts... as species evolved they began to determine that other organisms could actually aid their own survival. In the case of humans, it was probably something akin to people living in the same general territory and whom they were likely to meet again. If they help out this other person, then there is a chance that they in turn will recieve help in the future. Gradually this system became more tribal, with whole groups who lived together and helped support each other, but occasionally still aiding nearby tribes who are likely to reciprocate. Fastword to now and the system has expanded dramatically, covering entire nations if not the entire world. In a big city you aren't as likely to meet the one person you help out of a couple thousand as you would be back then when you helped one person out of ten or twenty in your area, yet the idea of potential reciprocation is so ingrained that people do it anyway. The same can be applied to those who simply cannot aid us at a later date for whatever reason, the system misfires and supports them.

It's very sad to think about, I suppose, but it is what it is.

As to your point against me, yes. I can't say that it is 'wrong' for you to rob me, though I personally do not find it to be a wonderful thing. Murder is also not wrong, though we instinctually see it as harming the species and condemn it, usually putting the individual to death or locking them away until they die so they cannot further damage our society. It isn't 'wrong' by the standards of some absolute moral system, but the majority (Or really just those in power, which is all that is necessary) dislike it and punish those who are seen as harming society. Don't you find it quite telling that all of our laws and 'moral precepts' are structured around things that harm our social structure? Killing individuals who might contribute is wrong, stealing and thus weakening our economic health is wrong, harming an individual who might contribute is wrong (This includes rape)... they're all there.

I put this in practice everyday, it's very easy. Do you eat food you don't like? Probably not. In a similar manner I don't do things that I have a negative opinion of. I don't like carrots and I don't like to rob old women, so I don't eat carrots or rob old women. It's very simple to implement, and I contend that you yourself do so.

[Cathar1950]

Is that accurate? (It's logical, but I'm sure I can find something wrong with it)

Do you happen to have a moral theory or notion of moral development that we can pick at? I recall as a child we built an underground fort and some bully knocked it down. A much larger older neighbor made the bully fix it and I remember him saying, “it is harder to build one then tear one down isn’t it?�. I was only 5 or 6, but it stuck.

It is reasonably accurate. Remember that individual survival is unimportant in evolution. It is which genetic traits increase the probability of successfully reproducing.

If our moral convictions really do stem from the need to do whatever promotes the species, then shouldn't we have the moral conviction that it is right, even our duty, to exterminate the sick, the aged, the handicapped?

There are cultures that do just that. There are those that when the elderly are ready and it is their time, they go for a long walk. Some let their sick and even children to the elements. In Jesus’ day children were left in the wilderness and if they were lucky some community might take them in.
There is nothing to suggest that the wellbeing of the individual isn’t served by morality as well as the social relationships. It may very well be in the long run that caring for the sick, elderly or handicapped individuals makes us all feel a little better as we all get old and any of us can end up sick or handicapped.
There are cultures that do “exterminate the sick, the aged, the handicapped�, why do you think it is wrong or right?

You would have to agree, these people don't promote the survival of the human race. In fact, they're a drain on it. They use up resources we all need to survive. They themselves contribute nothing to the survival of our race. And wouldn't it be our duty to get rid of anyone who might contaminate the gene pool—say, people with hereditary chromosomal defects? Shouldn't we at least prohibit them from reproducing? But we as humans have not and do not regard these harsh measures as our duty. In fact, we have the opposite convictions. We would condemn anyone who did them.

But history is full of examples of this being done. Not everyone condemned them and we still justify actions we would normally condemn. How is your pattern of argument supposed to make a point? There are cultures that act as you describe above. But then there are human relationships and even affection. You have taken some little piece of evolutionary explanation that is complex and varied and then create some straw man that actually exists to no real point at all but to show that evolution has no use for feelings because you failed to take just about everything into account.

What I'm asking is whether your evolutionary model could account for the moral convictions we all in fact do have toward these groups. After all, that is what your model is claiming to do-- account for the moral convictions we find among human beings. Does your model account for the strong moral sense we humans have that it is wrong in the extreme to harm the weak, the aged, and the handicapped?
What I'm saying is that there is nothing in a survival-based morality which would produce this strong moral conviction we have against the very actions that would promote the survival of the species.

Social relationships attachments and emotions, all which you interestingly leave out of evolutionary explanations you are considering. The shortcomings seem to be yours not evolutionary explanation.

Something else troubles me about your evolutionary model. I wonder if anyone really belives your model. I know you say you believe your explanation, but do you really believe it in the sense that you are willing to live as though it were true? And yes, it does matter. You see, if you don't believe it this way, then your belief is only an academic theory which you aren't really willing to follow. It would be like a person who claimed not to believe in gravity but was not willing to jump out of a third-floor window. She says she believes it, but she really doesn't.

No one could live with it the way you narrowly look at it.
It is your straw man. You fail to take into account complex social relationships.
We are all living with it every day and I know of only a few nuts that would lok at it the way you do, like some social Darwinist of the late 19th and early 20th century.
It was more expansionism, rationalization and justification for further empire building then anything related to Darwin. .

Now, if your evolutionary model is true, then there seems to be no basis for condemning any action at all. There are certain actions that are abhorrent to all of us. Like rape, stealing, assault, and deception. We condemn these regularly. But if your model is true, how can we?

Yet there is a bases, they are called laws. I don’t see where it follows that your poorly comprehended “evolutionary model� that there is “no basis for condemning any action at all.�, it is done all the time. You seem to be leaving out everything that relates to culture, language and social relationship in which we live as if evolution happened in some vacuum. .

Now the more important question arises. Why shouldn't we rape, and maim, and steal, and defraud, and do anything else that catches our fancy? We may have a feeling that these acts are wrong. That feeling may even be very strong. But on this view it is simply a biological adaptation inculcated into us over millions of years. It's a feeling, nothing more. There is no reason to regard any act as really right or wrong. In fact, on your evolutionary model it may even be possible to argue that rape is ethically good, because it propogates the species. The view you are advocating has no way of condemning rape, or anything else for that matter, as really wrong. It might even sanction something as awful as rape. My question is, are you willing to live through these terrible acts aren't really wrong, they just seem so?

Some Bible believers have all kinds of rationalizations so they can live with the stories in the Bible where God demands the killing of every man, woman, child and beast. They even claim God got mad because some didn’t obey. Your straw man you created for an evolutionary model sound more like the Biblical model of morality where you do what God tells you to do even if it is kill, rape and pillage.
I have read some apologist that even suggest God knew they were going to hell and the killing saved them just like they would kill witches to save their souls from hell after forcing them to confess.
Hell if you raped someone you had to marry them how is that for morality?
And they even argue that the Laws were good and come from God Himself.
You need to level your arguments at the Bible Believers.

So you believe that I can steal your wallet, then shoot you in the head, and have not done anything wrong. You can not condemn me anymore than "I don't like it", because it's really not wrong (according to you). My standard doesn't include murder and theft as morally wrong, therefore for me it's not wrong. You're denying yourself the right to claim that anything is morally wrong.
I'd love to see you put that view to practice.

Why would you think anyone would not think that was wrong, except maybe the perpetrator, and I am betting he has his reasons?
Forgetting for a moment that moral reasoning is a higher complex abstraction from what is right and wrong, why do you think something is morally wrong?

[kayky]

The only absolute standard for morality is love. A choice that comes from love is a moral choice. A choice that comes from ignorance or fear is an immoral choice. The real trick is learning to tell the difference.

[TheMessage]

The only absolute standard for morality is love. A choice that comes from love is a moral choice. A choice that comes from ignorance or fear is an immoral choice. The real trick is learning to tell the difference.

And where is this coming from? History doesn't seem to support that at all.

If I hear of someone getting robbed, I'd feel bad for them and say that the robber performed an immoral action, but that doesn't stem from love in any way, shape or form. Even someone who believed that my notions of morality come from an objective standard (Which I don't believe) can see that love never comes into play.

[kayky]

Someone who chooses to rob another is choosing from a fear of lack. This is what makes it an immoral decision. The feelings of any bystanders do not come into play. When I speak of love, I am not talking about sentiment. I talking about a state of mind not given to ignorance or fear.

[TheMessage]

Someone who chooses to rob another is choosing from a fear of lack. This is what makes it an immoral decision. The feelings of any bystanders do not come into play. When I speak of love, I am not talking about sentiment. I talking about a state of mind not given to ignorance or fear.

Not necessarilly. Greed doesn't always come from fear, in fact it usually doesn't except for the case of those in the vice of poverty.

Also, fear is a massive part of love. Anyone who has ever been in love can vouch for that.

[kayky]

All wrong choices can be traced back to fear at their base. Greed ultimately is based on the belief that one is inadequate without "things." Ultimately, this belief arises from a fear of personal inadequacy.

And I'm not talking about romantic love. I'm talking about a spiritual state in which you recognize your connection to all things. To harm another would be the same as harming one's self.

[TheMessage]

All wrong choices can be traced back to fear at their base. Greed ultimately is based on the belief that one is inadequate without "things." Ultimately, this belief arises from a fear of personal inadequacy.

And I'm not talking about romantic love. I'm talking about a spiritual state in which you recognize your connection to all things. To harm another would be the same as harming one's self.

I'll contend that that isn't necessarilly true. Let's assume a little story here:

There's a man in a loving and committed relationship. He is complete secure in his relationship to his spouse and never once doubted that the feelings were mutual and that his affection would be answered whenever needed. He is driving down a highway one night and finds an attractive female hitchhiker. Driven by pure lust and opportunity he rapes her. Note that he is well aware that as soon as he gets home he will be 'getting some boom-shaka-laka' and that it will be based on true affection, so he has no fear of 'not being loved'.

How has fear driven this man to perform such a deed?

[kayky]

I'll contend that that isn't necessarilly true. Let's assume a little story here:

There's a man in a loving and committed relationship. He is complete secure in his relationship to his spouse and never once doubted that the feelings were mutual and that his affection would be answered whenever needed. He is driving down a highway one night and finds an attractive female hitchhiker. Driven by pure lust and opportunity he rapes her. Note that he is well aware that as soon as he gets home he will be 'getting some boom-shaka-laka' and that it will be based on true affection, so he has no fear of 'not being loved'.

How has fear driven this man to perform such a deed?

First of all, rape has nothing to do with love or even lust. It is a desire for power. Rapists feel powerless and fear this powerlessness. This fear is temporarily assuaged by exerting power over another human being and making her feel powerless.