objective morality

[untermensche]

I think that is wrong. For the sake of argument if anything goes because God does not exist, then the "anything goes" by default is an objective moral system and standard in of itself. So the Christian is technically wrong when he says there is no absolute objective moral standard if God does not exist.

Anything goes is not any kind of "system". A system implies structure of some kind.

But just because Christians talk of this imaginary thing called "objective morality" is no reason anybody should take them seriously.

Is killing your child moral? Is it moral if some god capriciously commands?

Where is the morality in following destructive capricious commands?

There is no objective morality in the Bible or anywhere. It is a myth.

We have our subjective moralities and when enough subjective moralities agree on something it becomes a moral precept with the weight of human consensus behind it, but that is not the same as saying it is objective.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I already addressed a similar reply of yours here, but you didn't address my reply.

But I can do it again:

1. You say morality "lives" in motive. If by that you mean that whether some behavior is immoral depends (at least partially) on motive, sure (if not, what do you mean?), but that in no way implies that it is required that the world is made by a mind in order for morality to be objective, or that it is required that the world be made by a mind in order for it to contain motive.
If you have other premises, I would ask you to complete your argument, else it's a non-sequitur.

2. Your argument here is not an argument from objective morality to the existence of God. Rather, it's an argument from the existence of motive in the world to the existence of a creator of the world. But since the actual world contains everything that exists, how would there be a creator of it?
In other words, how do you get a creator of the world, given that any creator is in the world?
But if you are using "world" in a restricted fashon, what is that fashion?
a. In other worlds, what <i>proper subset, or part[/i] of causal reality cannot contain motive without a creator?
b. Let "actual world", or AC, stand for all that actually exists, including any creator of anything. Then, the AC contains motive. Does the AC have a creator? How? Remember, any agent that exists is in the actual world. In short, why does God have motive, but needs no creator?

3. Regardless, let us say for the sake of the argument that there is some agent with motive that creates the universe that we see, and which contains every other agent with motive. Let us stipulate here, and for the sake of the argument, that for some reason (or rather, for no reason, but no matter), a universe containing motive requires a creator, but the creator does not require a creator.
Then, for all we know, that creator may well not be God (i.e., not an omnimax (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, morallly perfect) being), and in particular, not morally perfect.
Purely for example, that creator might not even care about morality. It might have completely different values, and it might just be having fun running the universe and letting some primates evolve morality, some aliens from another planet evolve some analog, or whatever. But there are a zillion combinations in which

So, you have not shown in any way that objective morality requires God.

Side note: if by "God" you do not mean an omnimax being, please explain what you mean by "God".

I can't make it any simpler than saying for morals to be objective truths it is required that we exist in a mind beyond ourselves.

The Creator is the foundation of the world (if He exists), He need not be in it in the way we are (ie, it may be in Him).

The Creator is a necessary being, whose morality is a necessary part of His inevitability. Good morals are creative morals because they build civilisations (insofar as civilisations are greater creative entities than more basic societies ). In other words, in order for the Creator to exist He must be the father of the correct morals, they are needed for the greatest creativity.

I'm not asking you to make it simpler. I raised objections to your "motive" argument that you left unanswered. Instead, you now give what looks like a different argument. I'll address it too.

I can't make it any simpler than saying for morals to be objective truths it is required that we exist in a mind beyond ourselves.

That's not simple, but very obscure.

Still, if when you say that "morals" are "objective truths" you mean that moral matters (e.g., whether gay sex is always immoral) are objective matters, and that some statements like "x is immoral", "y is morally acceptable", etc. are true, then why wuold that be required?
And if you do not mean that, what do you mean?

Let's consider the following parallel:

P1: For mental illness to be objective truths, it is required that we exist in a mind beyond ourselves.

Do you agree? If not, what is the relevant difference?

That aside, why would the mind in question be that of a morally perfect being?

The Creator is the foundation of the world (if He exists), He need not be in it in the way we are (ie, it may be in Him).

What does "foundation of the world" mean?
You're being sloppy and particularly obscure, but you still have no case.

The Creator is a necessary being, whose morality is a necessary part of His inevitability. Good morals are creative morals because they build civilisations (insofar as civilisations are greater creative entities than more basic societies ). In other words, in order for the Creator to exist He must be the father of the correct morals, they are needed for the greatest creativity.

You implied "morals" are either true or false, but now you're talking about their being creative?
You're at least being very obscure, and perhaps equivocating.

Regardless, it's clear that that does not follow.

For example, you say "In other words, in order for the Creator to exist He must be the father of the correct morals, they are needed for the greatest creativity."
What does it even mean to be "the father of correct morals"?

Why can't the creator just not care about morality, assuming she exists?

Do you have any good reason to believe that?

Are you basing these ideas on the work of some philosopher? If so, could you please identify the philosopher and paper/s, book/s, etc.?

 

[Bomb#20]

We're proud of our refined morals, which put a high value on life. Another person thinks we are decadent for this and believe it will lead to a weakening of family and social bonds.

Are you suggesting that the criterion for a matter to be objective is whether people disagree about it?

This argument that there is some objective standard of behavior by which humans are compelled to behave simply does not stand up to close examination, no matter how many apparently horrible actions may be proposed.

Which argument are you talking about? Who the heck ever suggested that any objective standard of behavior is a standard of behavior by which humans are compelled to behave?!?

Please stop using the word objective. It erodes your argument.

I used the word objective because you used the word objective. You made two obviously illogical arguments against objective morality. I am pointing out your errors. So by all means, show me how to explain the errors you made without using the word objective.

It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of morality and its function in society.
... a universal foundation of all moral codes(repeated for the gazillionth time).
...None of this is objective. All remains subjective to the definition of the group and who is entitled to the protection of the moral code, and what is done to those who transgress.

Repeating something for the gazillionth time doesn't make it an argument.

 

[Bomb#20]

... it is necessary for the world to be the product of will in order for objective morality to exist.

If you believe that some societies are of a higher order than others it is required that you believe some morals are higher than others. In which case one set of morals has more truth than another set ..so even if you have trouble believing in God you can believe in truth...or do you believe all societies are equal, that we can not possibly measure any difference in life potential between different societies?

Then it follows that gods are not required in order for some morals to be higher than others. Only truth is required. A world not being a product of will is not going to magically make all societies in that world equal and is not going to magically make them all deliver to their members exactly the same life potential.

 

[Bronzeage]

We're proud of our refined morals, which put a high value on life. Another person thinks we are decadent for this and believe it will lead to a weakening of family and social bonds.

Are you suggesting that the criterion for a matter to be objective is whether people disagree about it?

This argument that there is some objective standard of behavior by which humans are compelled to behave simply does not stand up to close examination, no matter how many apparently horrible actions may be proposed.

Which argument are you talking about? Who the heck ever suggested that any objective standard of behavior is a standard of behavior by which humans are compelled to behave?!?

Please stop using the word objective. It erodes your argument.

I used the word objective because you used the word objective. You made two obviously illogical arguments against objective morality. I am pointing out your errors. So by all means, show me how to explain the errors you made without using the word objective.

It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of morality and its function in society.
... a universal foundation of all moral codes(repeated for the gazillionth time).
...None of this is objective. All remains subjective to the definition of the group and who is entitled to the protection of the moral code, and what is done to those who transgress.

Repeating something for the gazillionth time doesn't make it an argument.

Not agreeing with a statement, or failing to grasp its meaning does not make it less of an argument.

A human moral codes, for all cultures and societies are subject to the specific challenges of the environment in which the culture must exist. Note the word "subject." This means dependent or secondary. Human culture and society was fairly simple until we crossed a line and became the animals who claim property. While some animals claim a territory and defend it against others, we claim stuff that can be carried around with us. We like to claim more than we can actually carry, which requires us to trust our friends not to steal it when we are not looking. There has to be a general agreement about what can be owned and other agreements about sharing resources. All of this is subject(there's that word again) to things like scarcity and the effort and cooperation required to collect stuff. The intricacy of the rules developed to help us keep our stuff and keep order within the group is amazing. The rules always seem to outlive the need to create them in the first place.

Today, we live with the fragments of the moral codes of long ago, as cultures and societies merge and melt together. This leads to a lot of confusion among some people because most cultures still cling to aspects of their traditional code, which seem bizarre and sometimes cruel to other cultures.

This is my basic statement on the matter. After reading your posts, I'm not certain whether you believe there is an objective moral code which governs human behavior or not.

 

[untermensche]

....A human moral codes, for all cultures and societies are subject to the specific challenges of the environment in which the culture must exist....

They are also situational.

If you have been occupied by the Nazi's things that seemed unthinkable are now carefully planned by those who were considered most moral.

Killing and lying are now the moral thing to do.

 

[Bronzeage]

....A human moral codes, for all cultures and societies are subject to the specific challenges of the environment in which the culture must exist....

They are also situational.

If you have been occupied by the Nazi's things that seemed unthinkable are now carefully planned by those who were considered most moral.

Killing and lying are now the moral thing to do.

Situational is another word for subjective. The important thing to remember about morality is it only applies to the group, so group definition is the critical element. Nazis spent a lot of time carefully removing Jews from the group, which made them fair targets for murder and theft. It was all very neat and tidy.

 

[apeman]

Regarding human life as having an element of the sacred about it raises its value a bit above something due mere "courtesy and respect", don't you think? Courtesy and respect doesn't extend to people you don't wish to impress for instance, whereas the "sacred" can extent to any old prick.

Why would you only show courtesy and respect to those whom you want to impress? That's a horrible attitude. Everybody merits those as a result of being human beings, not as a result of being someone you want to look good infront of.

"Courtesy and respect" are only extended to those we think deserve it (for whatever reason...to impress for example), you may not extend it to someone who has harmed someone you love for instance. Believing that all human beings own a soul (ie, something sacred) obviously involves a deeper concept of their worth...it may even stop you hurting someone you have good reason for wanting to hurt.

 

[apeman]

If you believe that some societies are of a higher order than others it is required that you believe some morals are higher than others. In which case one set of morals has more truth than another set ..so even if you have trouble believing in God you can believe in truth...or do you believe all societies are equal, that we can not possibly measure any difference in life potential between different societies?

You start a sentence with the word "if" which gives me the impression you think I agree with the statement. I don't believe I ever mentioned orders of morals or their relative elevations. Nice try.

You also assume I have trouble believing in God, which is another misapprehension on your part.

As I stated before, your appeal to the authority of God puts you in an impossible position. Since the rest of us do not have access to the information you have, we must take your word for it. The word of an omnipotent being loses some of its salesmanship when filtered through the brain of a human.

One of the problems of the "God said so" morality is that there's always some other guy who says the same thing, but his morals allow him to stone adulterers and cut the hand off of a thief. Occasionally one of them will surgically remove the clitoris of a prepubescent girl. In each of these cases, we are assured God has sanctioned it all.

If we go with the One God idea, then a singularity cannot be in disagreement with itself. Therefore, either one or both of the humans are wrong. How can we measure any difference in life potential between different societies when each society claims the same authority?

What is "life potential"?

Of course we have access to the same information. We can look at the world and find good reasons for both believing and not believing in God .I believe for instance that if only thought exists , then it inevitable that God exists. A materialist believes that there is mind independent stuff out there...I don't know how he comes to that conclusion , but he does. If you come to the conclusion that there could well be a God , then it is natural to try and come to a conclusion about what He wants from us.

The thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our concept of morality...it stands to reason that this thing, morality, is the purpose of our lives.

I agree that often we are wrong about what God is, but that is no reason to stop seeking the truth about Him. I don't claim to know which is the best description of God, but I do think that there is something special about the Jesus Christ description.

I believe that the most creative society is probably the fairest because it has advanced enough to give the greatest number of people the greatest amount of spare time to be creative. So , for instance, the Christian based West is more creative (advanced) than the islamic world.

The greatest life potential is to have access to the greatest creativity potential...especially in the sciences, arts and philosophy/theology.

 

[apeman]

I can't make it any simpler than saying for morals to be objective truths it is required that we exist in a mind beyond ourselves.

The Creator is the foundation of the world (if He exists), He need not be in it in the way we are (ie, it may be in Him).

The Creator is a necessary being, whose morality is a necessary part of His inevitability. Good morals are creative morals because they build civilisations (insofar as civilisations are greater creative entities than more basic societies ). In other words, in order for the Creator to exist He must be the father of the correct morals, they are needed for the greatest creativity.

I'm not asking you to make it simpler. I raised objections to your "motive" argument that you left unanswered. Instead, you now give what looks like a different argument. I'll address it too.

I can't make it any simpler than saying for morals to be objective truths it is required that we exist in a mind beyond ourselves.

That's not simple, but very obscure.

Still, if when you say that "morals" are "objective truths" you mean that moral matters (e.g., whether gay sex is always immoral) are objective matters, and that some statements like "x is immoral", "y is morally acceptable", etc. are true, then why wuold that be required?
And if you do not mean that, what do you mean?

Let's consider the following parallel:

P1: For mental illness to be objective truths, it is required that we exist in a mind beyond ourselves.

Do you agree? If not, what is the relevant difference?

That aside, why would the mind in question be that of a morally perfect being?

The Creator is the foundation of the world (if He exists), He need not be in it in the way we are (ie, it may be in Him).

What does "foundation of the world" mean?
You're being sloppy and particularly obscure, but you still have no case.

The Creator is a necessary being, whose morality is a necessary part of His inevitability. Good morals are creative morals because they build civilisations (insofar as civilisations are greater creative entities than more basic societies ). In other words, in order for the Creator to exist He must be the father of the correct morals, they are needed for the greatest creativity.

You implied "morals" are either true or false, but now you're talking about their being creative?
You're at least being very obscure, and perhaps equivocating.

Regardless, it's clear that that does not follow.

For example, you say "In other words, in order for the Creator to exist He must be the father of the correct morals, they are needed for the greatest creativity."
What does it even mean to be "the father of correct morals"?

Why can't the creator just not care about morality, assuming she exists?

Do you have any good reason to believe that?

Are you basing these ideas on the work of some philosopher? If so, could you please identify the philosopher and paper/s, book/s, etc.?

Morals are ideas, they are not material things, therefore if they are objective it is necessary that they exist as ideas which are external to us...that would mean that the foundation of the world around us is mind...not matter.

"Foundation" in this case means "basis and "cause".

I don't know why you are bringing up mental illness, I've already said that such an illness can be objectively true...it requires a God because a delusion (for instance) requires that there is a correct way of thinking about the world, that truth lies beyond the self regarding thoughts (morals), thoughts are held in a mind.

The simplest way of viewing this idea is to think of our minds as a subset of God's mind, in a sense we are part of Him, a part that has a degree of autonomy which has led to us becoming separated from Him (though we are still utterly dependent upon Him.)

When I say good morals are creative I am saying that good morals are the basis of successful societies. It is within societies that man finds his greatest creativity.It stands to reason that if good morals reward humanity then God likes those morals (because He rewards those civilisations that follow them).

Bishop Berkeley is the philosopher that comes closest to this..I was told about him after I had been playing with this idea (that only thoughts exist...but not only mine).

 

[apeman]

If you believe that some societies are of a higher order than others it is required that you believe some morals are higher than others. In which case one set of morals has more truth than another set ..so even if you have trouble believing in God you can believe in truth...or do you believe all societies are equal, that we can not possibly measure any difference in life potential between different societies?

Then it follows that gods are not required in order for some morals to be higher than others. Only truth is required. A world not being a product of will is not going to magically make all societies in that world equal and is not going to magically make them all deliver to their members exactly the same life potential.

As I have said, morals are ideas that exist in motive, if external morality exists within the world then it is necessary that the world is a product of mind. Sure we can look at societies that are successful as a measure of their moral truth knowledge, but such a truth must exist separate from them ...they need to be discovered rather than invented by them.

You say we don't need the concept of God but then again societies ruled by people that claim to be the source of truth must fail.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Then it follows that gods are not required in order for some morals to be higher than others. Only truth is required. A world not being a product of will is not going to magically make all societies in that world equal and is not going to magically make them all deliver to their members exactly the same life potential.

As I have said, morals are ideas that exist in motive, if external morality exists within the world then it is necessary that the world is a product of mind. Sure we can look at societies that are successful as a measure of their moral truth knowledge, but such a truth must exist separate from them ...they need to be discovered rather than invented by them.

You say we don't need the concept of God but then again societies ruled by people that claim to be the source of truth must fail.

If by "morals are ideas that exist in motive" you mean that generally whether a behavior is immoral, etc., depends on motivation, that's true but irrelevant.
If you mean that in order for statements like "it's immoral for a human to torture humans for fun" to be true, humans must have been created for a motive, that's neither warranted nor true, and in any case, that would not give you God - any creator might do.
Regardless, you seem to be claiming that in order for moral truth to be discovered rather than invented - or something like that -, God must exist. Why?
For that matter, one might say that in order for illness truth to be discovered rather than invented, God must exist, or that in order for truth about color to be discovered, etc., God must exist, and so on. What's the difference?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Morals are ideas, they are not material things, therefore if they are objective it is necessary that they exist as ideas which are external to us...that would mean that the foundation of the world around us is mind...not matter.

You say that "morals are ideas", and that ideas are not "material things".
But what does that mean?
In particular, what do you mean by "morals" in that context? Are you talking about moral statements, or moral issues, or moral beliefs?
Or are you talking about moral properties? Or moral truths?

Below you say morals are thoughts, but that's unclear. If "thoughts" do not mean "beliefs" (or actually, their content), are they truth-apt?

But to make the matter clearer, could you give me an example of a moral?
In other words, could you give an example of one of the things that you claim are not material and whose plural is "morals", in your usage?


Earlier you talked about "morals" being "objective truths". So, it appeared you were talking about moral truths. One might as well say, "truths about mental illness are ideas, they are not material things, therefore if they are objective, it is necessary that they exist as ideas which are external to us...that would mean the foundation of the world around us is mind...not matter" (by the way, for that matter, I could have used "objective truths about elephants" for that matter). But now you say that morals are thoughts. Okay, let's go with that.

"Foundation" in this case means "basis and "cause".

I get "cause". I don't know what you mean by "basis". But let's move on.

I don't know why you are bringing up mental illness, I've already said that such an illness can be objectively true...it requires a God because a delusion (for instance) requires that there is a correct way of thinking about the world, that truth lies beyond the self regarding thoughts (morals), thoughts are held in a mind.

I bring it up because you earlier said or implied that an argument from objective mental illness to theism would not work, but you insist that an argument from objective "morals" to theism does work, so I was asking you what the relevant difference was.

In fact, you earlier said:

I think that illness could exist in a world without a God because illness isn't mind dependant (setting aside the fact that I think the whole world is mind dependent...but I can imagine a Godless world where there is illness but no objective morality.....this also explains my feelings about your "horseness" question).

So, you can imagine a godless world with objective illness but no objective morality. Again, my question is what is the relevant difference?
You say illness is not mind-dependent (or at least, you can imagine it not being mind-dependent). But why can you imagine illness - including mental illness - not being mind-dependent, but you cannot imagine even morality being not mind-dependent? And how does mind-dependence play a role anyway? You seem to be implying that morality is mind-dependent, yet objective, which means you do not believe that mind-independence is required for objectivity, which raises the question: why are you even bringing up mind-dependence? How is mind-dependence related to whether morality is objective?

But let's take a closer look at your new claim. You say that morals are "self regarding thoughts".
Yes, okay, so thoughts about elephants are also held in a mind.
Let's parallel your argument again:

You say:

Morals are ideas, they are not material things, therefore if they are objective it is necessary that they exist as ideas which are external to us...that would mean that the foundation of the world around us is mind...not matter.

Parallel:

Thoughts about elephants are ideas, they're not material things, therefore if they are objective it is necessary that they exist as ideas which are external to us...that would mean that the foundation of the world is mind...not matter.

So, does the parallel work? Does an argument from objective thoughts about elephants (whatever "objective" might even mean in your usage) to the conclusion that the world around us is founded on mind, not matter, succeed?
If not, what is the relevant difference between your argument from "morals" and my parallel from thoughts about elephants?

The simplest way of viewing this idea is to think of our minds as a subset of God's mind, in a sense we are part of Him, a part that has a degree of autonomy which has led to us becoming separated from Him (though we are still utterly dependent upon Him.)

But I see no good reason to even suspect that God might exist (there are very sophisticated philosophical arguments - clever even -, but none of them is a good one). For that matter, it's possible to come up with a clever, sophisticated defense of the view that the Earth is less than 10000 (or 1000, or whatever) years old.

When I say good morals are creative I am saying that good morals are the basis of successful societies. It is within societies that man finds his greatest creativity.It stands to reason that if good morals reward humanity then God likes those morals (because He rewards those civilisations that follow them).

That does not seem related to the argument, but let's move on...

Bishop Berkeley is the philosopher that comes closest to this..I was told about him after I had been playing with this idea (that only thoughts exist...but not only mine).

Berkely argued for idealism, but his arguments had nothing to do with metaethical arguments as far as I know. For example, you can find a brief account here.

 

[Bomb#20]

Then it follows that gods are not required in order for some morals to be higher than others. Only truth is required. A world not being a product of will is not going to magically make all societies in that world equal and is not going to magically make them all deliver to their members exactly the same life potential.

As I have said, morals are ideas that exist in motive, if external morality exists within the world then it is necessary that the world is a product of mind.

As I pointed out before, morality doesn't need to be external in order for one set of morals to have more truth than another set. But for whatever reason, it seems having truth isn't enough all by itself. To satisfy you, apparently morals also have to be external. So my question to you is, does God agree with you?

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're correct that if external morality exists within the world then it is necessary that the world is a product of mind. Well then, if external morality exists within God then it is necessary that God is a product of mind. So either God was created by a higher-level GOd who supplies plain old God with external morality, and GOd was created by a still higher-level GOD who supplies level-2 GOd with external morality, and so on ad infinitum, or else the highest-level producer of morality, be He God or GOD or GOD!! or whoever, is satisfied with truth all by itself, and doesn't need morals to also be external.

So do morals have to be external to satisfy God?

Sure we can look at societies that are successful as a measure of their moral truth knowledge, but such a truth must exist separate from them ...they need to be discovered rather than invented by them.

You say we don't need the concept of God but then again societies ruled by people that claim to be the source of truth must fail.

So who says the way to measure differences in life potential between different societies is to ask the societies' rulers? Are you so accustomed to taking the word of Somebody who says truth comes from Him, that the only alternative that occurs to you is taking the word of somebody else who says the same thing? So far, societies ruled by people who don't claim to be the source of truth and who let their subjects remain free to discover truth for themselves haven't failed, and are more successful by and large than societies that require their subjects to believe whatever God tells them. Truth is discovered by reason and observation, not dictated by authority or Authority.

 

[Bomb#20]

Not agreeing with a statement, or failing to grasp its meaning does not make it less of an argument.

No, it's your statements' not having inference rules applied to them that let your conclusion be derived from them that makes your post not an argument. What you were doing is describing your way of looking at morality and making statements that express your view of it. It's pretty much the same as if I'd said it was an objective fact that Albert Einstein married his cousin, and you replied:

"It appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of kinship and its function in society. A kinship system defines mutual assistance within a group and further defines whom in the group you're expected to show loyalty to. The critical word here is not kinship, but group. This destroys the idea of objective cousins, since who is or isn't seen as related to you is subject to group custom."

A human moral codes, for all cultures and societies are subject to the specific challenges of the environment in which the culture must exist. Note the word "subject." This means dependent or secondary.

And that makes it "subjective"? You're offering proof by pun?

Human culture and society was fairly simple until we crossed a line and became the animals who claim property.

You still buying into all that Hobbesian social-contract state-of-nature mythology? What evidence is there for any pre-property-claiming human culture and society?

While some animals claim a territory and defend it against others, we claim stuff that can be carried around with us.

So do other chimpanzees.

We like to claim more than we can actually carry, which requires us to trust our friends not to steal it when we are not looking. There has to be a general agreement about what can be owned and other agreements about sharing resources. All of this is subject(there's that word again) to things like scarcity and the effort and cooperation required to collect stuff. The intricacy of the rules developed to help us keep our stuff and keep order within the group is amazing. The rules always seem to outlive the need to create them in the first place.

Today, we live with the fragments of the moral codes of long ago, as cultures and societies merge and melt together. This leads to a lot of confusion among some people because most cultures still cling to aspects of their traditional code, which seem bizarre and sometimes cruel to other cultures.

This is my basic statement on the matter.

And that's all it is: your basic statement. What you aren't producing is an inference rule taking you from all this situational variation and confusion and mutual disapproval to the conclusion that nobody's right and nobody else is wrong.

After reading your posts, I'm not certain whether you believe there is an objective moral code which governs human behavior or not.

Again you talk like a creationist who thinks it's up to him to define evolutionary theory. "Governs" is no better a term than "compelled". Who the heck ever suggested that the behavior of Josef Stalin or Charles Manson or Bernie Madoff was governed by a moral code? Moral codes don't govern people; people govern people. Moral codes identify people who are doing it badly.

But if you mean you can't tell from my posts if I think whether sodomy should be illegal or not is a question people can be right or wrong about, see post #72. Yes, I think there are more likely than not to be objective moral truths. I think this for the same reason I think people shouldn't be persecuted for being gay: familiarity with the opposition's reasons for their contrary views.

Situational is another word for subjective.

Why on earth would you believe those words are equivalent? What could be more situational than evolutionary fitness? For a hundred and fifty million years the environment favored large size, we got T. rex and Brachiosaurus and so forth, and then the environment suddenly changed and every land animal over 25 kg went extinct. You think this means that fitness is a matter of opinion?

 

[fromderinside]

Situational is another word for subjective.

Why on earth would you believe those words are equivalent? What could be more situational than evolutionary fitness? For a hundred and fifty million years the environment favored large size, we got T. rex and Brachiosaurus and so forth, and then the environment suddenly changed and every land animal over 25 kg went extinct. You think this means that fitness is a matter of opinion?

No.

Fitness is a matter happenstance intersecting with possible accommodations by biological entities. What fitness has to do with subjective is derivative. What fitness has to do with situation is here and now. We are talking about a biological entities mechanisms for dealing with the here and now with what the biological entity has in it's processing and decision making repertoire at the time. To make morality objective one needs to reference the being in the situations to the environment in which it occurs possibly with some lawful generalizations about beings tendencies over life history.

As for fitness and opinion is is a common practice to judge one's fitness from a personal perspective in a particular time and location. So yes. Fitness is subjective, a matter of opinion. Do you actually think you're fit because of your observed capacities? Could it not be you're fit because your immune system tolerates particular bacteria and viruses?

 

[Bomb#20]

As for fitness and opinion is is a common practice to judge one's fitness from a personal perspective in a particular time and location. So yes. Fitness is subjective, a matter of opinion. Do you actually think you're fit because of your observed capacities? Could it not be you're fit because your immune system tolerates particular bacteria and viruses?

I meant evolutionary fitness, not physical fitness -- sorry about the ambiguity. I'm not evolutionarily fit. I'm going to die without issue and that's been foreseeable for decades.

 

[Bronzeage]

As for fitness and opinion is is a common practice to judge one's fitness from a personal perspective in a particular time and location. So yes. Fitness is subjective, a matter of opinion. Do you actually think you're fit because of your observed capacities? Could it not be you're fit because your immune system tolerates particular bacteria and viruses?

I meant evolutionary fitness, not physical fitness -- sorry about the ambiguity. I'm not evolutionarily fit. I'm going to die without issue and that's been foreseeable for decades.

A few years ago, I was in a locker room and overheard two men talking about their workout routines. They were runners and very concerned with keeping their weight down. Both had very lean body types, all muscle, and very low fat. A friend who heard them, said he tried hard but could never be in that good of shape.

I told him, "In evolutionary terms, you and I are in much better shape than either of them. We've made it through the winter with our precious fat reserves intact."

 

[fromderinside]

Leave it to you to be the only one to understand.

 

[apeman]

As I have said, morals are ideas that exist in motive, if external morality exists within the world then it is necessary that the world is a product of mind. Sure we can look at societies that are successful as a measure of their moral truth knowledge, but such a truth must exist separate from them ...they need to be discovered rather than invented by them.

You say we don't need the concept of God but then again societies ruled by people that claim to be the source of truth must fail.

If by "morals are ideas that exist in motive" you mean that generally whether a behavior is immoral, etc., depends on motivation, that's true but irrelevant.
If you mean that in order for statements like "it's immoral for a human to torture humans for fun" to be true, humans must have been created for a motive, that's neither warranted nor true, and in any case, that would not give you God - any creator might do.
Regardless, you seem to be claiming that in order for moral truth to be discovered rather than invented - or something like that -, God must exist. Why?
For that matter, one might say that in order for illness truth to be discovered rather than invented, God must exist, or that in order for truth about color to be discovered, etc., God must exist, and so on. What's the difference?

The difference is that if morals exist in motive then morals exist within a form of will...illnesses do not depend upon will. If morals can exist outside of our opinions, then like geometric objects , they exist within the world around us (in the sense that we can apply them to the world around us in useful ways) ...which means the world around us is necessarily mind dependent.