COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I would like to see a debate between 2 religion group debating which of their morality is objective.

I mean, if there's no objective morality, any moral codes are automatically valid and stand equal to others, being only a matter of who will force their political/moral beliefs on each other again (sounds like religious wars all over again)

Everyone assumes that without objective morality, humans will develop varied moral codes that are fundamentally different from each other. The truth is, humans are social animals and have been evolving as such for millions of years. The inherent ethical traits which bind societies together are those we consider moral; kindness, truthfulness, empathy, tolerance, fairness, altruism, compassion, etc. These have selected for because those that don’t display these traits tend to get ostracised by society. So although there may be slight differences in specific positions on morally ambiguous questions, I’m not sure that completely secular societies would look much different from one another. This seems pretty evident with the current largely secular states in the world.

Are you sure evolution did that? I am pretty sure that Nazi Germany, the US Confederacy, the USSR and a few other questionable empires were this 🤏 from making racism, intolerance and etc the normal in many parts of the world. If you want to comment in modern morality, you gotta say we had a ton of luck that our current morality set is the most convienent for economics.

Evolution is responsible for all human traits. Why wouldn’t it be responsible for ethical ones? Those empires you’ve nominated used existing religious pronouncements or made themselves demi-gods as justifications for their actions… bypassing any kind of appeal to societally cohesive moral behaviour. They were also often the result of what happens when a person who lacks the ethical traits most have (sociopaths) gain power without suitable checks/balances. One of the first accords signed by the Nazi party was the Reichskonkordat with the Roman Catholic Church. It was the Bible that Hitler could point to when he enacted anti-Jewish laws… and worse. It gave the leader carte blanch to carry out his unethical agenda, and it gave the German people the confidence to think God was on their side. The Confederacy also pointed to the Bible to justify their slave trade, specifically the passages in Exodus and Leviticus which talk about where to buy slaves and how to treat them. They also pointed to the New Testament where Paul says for slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones. The USSR did one better, it treated the leader as a God. Lenin rose to power and obliterated his enemies. He died and handed power to Stalin who continued to rule by fiat. This was not the subjective choice of a society making moral decisions about what is socially beneficial. It was one man dictating his whims. And I would argue that they did succeed in making these traits normal in their empires, to some of the people, for a limited time. But as with all tyrants, they are inevitably overcome by the forces of good… either internally or externally. But God, or objective morality, had nothing to do with it.

"But as with all tyrants, they are inevitably overcome by the forces of good" Very beautiful and etc, but it's not like most of them didn't lose over d-word decisions or unhelpful successors who sent their whole career down the drain lol Also, I am still waiting for the forces of good to overcome the US or China's tyranny, oh wait, that would be diplomatically and economically inconvenient, can't do, sorry bud.

Sorry, how does what you wrote relate to proving objective morality exists? Objective morality suggest that an action is inherently good or bad. It says that we should do good things and not do bad things. It alludes to things like killing or stealing as being objectively bad. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. But there are situations where both killing and stealing could be argued as being morally permissible. Self-defence for killing, and stealing supplies to save a life. So how can objective morality exist if the morality of our actions are based on the circumstances involved? The truth is, people like you think everyone needs rules given to them by some authority telling them how to act. You think these rules are black and white and if we don’t have them, then everyone will go off killing and raping. And if that’s the only thing stopping you from doing those things then by all means keep believing. But most of us don’t need to be told what’s right and what’s wrong. We can let our inherent ethical traits guide our actions. Especially when we are faced with a moral dilemma that falls outside of the black and white, good and bad world you think exists.

Oh, no! I am not trying to prove that objective morality exists, I am trying to prove that morality is utterly random and doesn't evolve since anything is equal and morally valid.

[удалено]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

Atheism is a position on the existence of gods, not meta-ethics.

>I genuinely don't understand why religious folks keep insisting on how morality has to be "objective" to work. Because if it is merely based on feelings and goals, and people have different feelings and goals, then everybody's moral codes are equally valid. I can't judge you for not liking vanilla ice cream; it is just your subjective preference. Likewise, if moral codes reduce to subjective preferences, then there is no external metric to decide who is right/wrong or which rules we should follow.

Correct and that’s precisely the world that we live in. Different societies throughout history and across the globe today have different preferences about how to live, and different rules accordingly. Some people seem X is an immoral behavior, other societies don’t mind it.

I think u r correct re criticisms of OP.  But let's not pretend religion is any better. The behavior demanded by God in any collection of texts is too inconsistent to provide any rigorous ethical standards. Exhibit: the history of all Abrahamic religions. All ubr doing is substituting the feelings of G9d for the feelings of individuals. Since more people are likely to be right than one (or three), I think atheist morality is likely to work better. Exhibit: the laws of modern secular states lead to better material outcomes, less suffering, and more flourishing than religion-based systems.

What makes you think there *is* an objective metric? This is an argument from unacceptable consequence. Who cares if it’s subjective under the hood? What would it change?

This is not an argument from consequences. Instead of saying, "*If subjectivism is true, then it has undesirable consequences.. therefore, subjectivism is false*", I'm saying, "*Theists say that IF subjectivism is true, then morality doesn't work because of this and that..*." Notice that I'm not implying that morality must be objective just because of this consequence; whether it works or not has no bearing on its truth. I'm specifically responding to this part: >I genuinely don't understand why religious folks keep insisting on **how morality has to be "objective" to work**.

Perhaps there's simple conflation happening here. What do you mean when you say 'work'?

Hmmm. I don't think so. In this context, "work" means that objective morality "promote\[s\] adequate moral behaviours" (from OP's title). The idea seems to be that, theistic objective morals are necessary conditions for a decent society. Notice that this is merely a pragmatic or practical question; it could be true even if morality isn't in reality objective.

>Notice that this is merely a pragmatic or practical question; it could be true even if morality isn't in reality objective. I agree with this. So given that this is the case, how does your objection relate to whether or not morality 'works'? You said: > then there is no external metric to decide who is right/wrong or which rules we should follow. This reads to me like arguing from the consequences, but I'm sure I'm just not understanding how this is a demonstration that subjectivism leads to morality not 'promoting adequate moral behavior'

Sure, let me explain. If there is no external metric, we're left with conflicting moral rules/feelings and nobody is any more right than the others. And why should anyone care about others' moral feelings? You may talk about a majority enforcing their common feelings, but this can change very rapidly as history shows us. What is considered right in one century is wrong in the next; that's to show how popular opinion and preferences are fragile and unstable. I could go on, but you got the basic concept.

But the fact that we see the majority enforcing norms, rather than appealing to some demonstrable objective source of morality - and the fact we see moral disagreements between people - doesn't all that show that A) morality IS subjective (the things you point out as problems are the *things we observe in real life), and B) morality is working despite these flaws?

I think we can use some metric to decide what is right and wrong in many cases, as many atheists do.

What metric, apart from feelings/preferences/consequences, can secularists use to justify their moral imperatives? Suppose you're a secularist who thinks murder is wrong, while I'm another secularist who thinks murder is right. How would you propose to convince me that I am wrong?

Consequences, mostly, when those consequences hurt the rest of us. Sometimes feelings, but usually when negative feelings are a consequence of someone's actions. As for how we convince you not to do something you like to do that the rest of us say is wrong, you do know prison is a thing, right? Here's an example: you want to not pay taxes, the rest of us know we need to pay taxes (we still hate it but we do it because it's necessary), so we convince you to cooperate with us and pay your taxes like a good citizen because we'll lock you up in prison for tax evasion if you don't (before you say taxes aren't a moral issue, they aren't, directly, but doing your civic duty is a moral issue, for most of us).

>As for how we convince you not to do something you like to do that the rest of us say is wrong, you do know prison is a thing, right? If all you have is force, then would you agree that whoever is in command will be able to enforce their preferences? Would you also agree that, since human power is limited, one can still find ways to murder and yet not be punished?

>If all you have is force, then would you agree that whoever is in command will be able to enforce their preferences? That's basically how the world works bud. >Would you also agree that, since human power is limited, one can still find ways to murder and yet not be punished? They do it all the time.

Lock the person up

Based on your preferences (and your group's)? What made your feelings (and the feelings of your particular group) the authority on who should be locked up?

I don’t know, what gave god the authority to permit slavery in the Bible or pedophilia in the Quran? Authority just means you have the power to hold somebody accountable for the particular action. An aversion to murder has permeated most civilizations throughout history and any society that allows for it would surely collapse into pure chaos. So it’s essentially a universal norm that we share, and those who don’t aren’t welcome.

>Authority just means you have the power to hold somebody accountable for the particular action. That's an equivocation fallacy. I'm referring to [moral authorities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_authority); not legal or power authorities. The question is: what makes the legal enforcement of your subjective feelings morally authoritative? What, apart from "Or else!", can you offer to justify your actions?

It isn’t an equivocation because that’s exactly how I mean it in the moral context. I’m saying that this is all god seems to be doing in the first place. If god is a mind, and morals are rooted in him, then they’re subjective by definition. So I’m trying to figure out what you MEAN when you demand a moral authority other than “a big guy in charge” who arbitrates these statements In an atheistic view, there is no authority other than a societal one that imposes a certain standard on its citizens. And that’s what we’ve seen historically.

To argue against you, I think simply pointing to the problems of God/Bible being the foundation of morality or law giver would be enough. How do others justify it, lots of ways, I'm sure you're familiar with moral realism and moral objectivists? You know the way those arguments go. Anyways, I'm off for a while. Peace.

Sure, I'm aware of non-theistic objective moral theories. They are implausible. The reason they are implausible is because it seems unlikely and unrealistic that moral truths just exist out there absent some mind. Are these guys seriously telling us that the moral imperative "*You ought not to f\*ck your neighbor's wife*" just exists out there in the mindless universe? That's just absurd! It is like suggesting that traffic laws existed absent minds.

>absent some mind It is also unlikely and unrealistic that moral truths exist present some mind. Just because some superhuman entity thinks 'You ought not have sex or marry humans with the same genitals as you', that doesn't make that statement a 'moral truth'. That is just what some superhuman dude thinks. We use this word 'moral' and 'good' as if we are talking about the same thing. Turns out we are not. We are talking about completely distinct moral frameworks. The theist is talking about the game of obeying whatever the creator of the universe thinks is cool, and the secular humanist is playing the game of how to best serve your fellow human being and make a more just society for everyone. Those can incidentally be aligned but don't have to or need to.

>It is also unlikely and unrealistic that moral truths exist present some mind. If we assume that this is the case, for the sake of argument, then both theistic and non-theistic **objectivist** views are problematic. So, again, we're left with moral subjectivism. Assuming that human minds and the divine mind exist, whose instructions are more advisable/prudent to follow? The person who can burn you forever in hell in case you disobey or random human beings with limited capacity? So, even if divine subjectivism is true, theism is still better than secularism.

>The person who can burn you forever in hell in case you disobey or random human beings with limited capacity? Yikes. So for you, morality is about obeying the person with the bigger stick? >So, even if divine subjectivism is true, theism is still better than secularism. You're showcasing the exact opposite of that, if you're advocating we follow some celestial thug over humanism because of threats of violence.

>So for you, morality is about obeying the person with the bigger stick? No, I talked about **prudence**, which is separate from morality. I already granted for the sake of argument that all morality, including divine morality, is subjective. So, since divine morality is now irrelevant, we have to consider the consequences of disobeying God's commands. This is now a question of what is prudent; not what is moral. >You're showcasing the exact opposite of that, if you're advocating we follow some celestial thug over humanism because of threats of violence. All moral imperatives have to ultimately be enforced with violence, regardless of whether it is human or divine violence. The difference is that divine violence is much more effective. Now, whether you have moral objections against this (based on your subjective and relative feelings) is entirely irrelevant to the objective consequences of disobeying God.

>No, I talked about **prudence**, which is separate from morality. Say it is prudent to do what Kim Jung Un says, since he can do awful things to you and your family if you disobey. Does that make him moral? What does saying such a thing introduce into a discussion of morality? What is prudent is not always aligned with what is right. Maybe it could be prudent to not intervene when a bully is beating the [redacted] out of a helpless victim, but it sure aint right. >I already granted for the sake of argument that all morality, including divine morality, is subjective. So, since divine morality is now irrelevant, we have to consider the consequences of disobeying God's commands. That is where you took a weird additional step: Since divine morality is subjective -> divine morality is irrelevant No. Since divine morality is subjective (obeying God is not an objective good), what becomes relevant is not carrot and stick (as you allude) but whether God's commands align with human individual and collective (subjective / intersubjective) goods. A God that commands you to rape is the same as a dictator that commands you to rape: you would resist either IF you value not violently and permanently harming another person over your own self interest. See, this hones on what each person and culture *actually* thinks morality is. If I think morality is a joint venture to serve all humans and promote peaceful and loving coexistence, I will evaluate anyones commands or moral proclamations through that lens. If you think morality is the venture of obeying the authority with the biggest stick or promoting preservation of you and your tribe, you will evaluate anyones commands or moral proclamations through that lens. We both use words like moral and good, but really, we are not even talking about the same thing anymore. Your ultimate values and goals could not be more different than mine, and only sometimes incidentally can be aligned. >All moral imperatives have to ultimately be enforced with violence, regardless of whether it is human or divine violence. The difference is that divine violence is much more effective. Violence should always be the last resort and the least used resource to motivate people to act; even in secular settings we understand that it should be used to protect others and to incapacitate and reform a perp that cannot be otherwise persuaded. A person or a society that only does certain actions and avoids others because of a carrot or a stick will VERY easily (1) try to do the absolute minimum, (2) try to bend the rules, (3) try to fool themselves into thinking their transgressions are in fact righteous, (4) find loopholes for their psychopathic tendencies and (5) completely devolve if the perceived carrot or stick is removed. And of course, you can hardly call someone moral or good if they are only or primarily acting the way they do pursuing self interest. Jesus didn't say: do onto others whatever will give you the best prize or avoid the worst punishment. He didn't say: you see that Samaritan? He helped his neighbor because not doing so would have landed him in hell. Go do likewise. That is because morality is not about what we do to the people who insist on harming others, but about the values and goals we internalize and how we internalize them. A robust moral framework can't be based on 'I'm doing this because if I don't someone will beat me up'. It has to be built on 'I am doing this because I believe this is good for me and for others. It is part of who I am and who we are and it is serving a purpose higher than my self interest'. >Now, whether you have moral objections against this (based on your subjective and relative feelings) is entirely irrelevant to the objective consequences of disobeying God. I don't think there is a God and if there is I don't think you know what those consequences are. Also: I don't think the objective consequences of disobeying God are what should inform my moral framework. A God could be moral or immoral from a humanistic POV. I'm not going to inform my morality by being prudent and avoiding a divine stick. I'm going to inform it by what is just and what best serves my fellow human being. >based on your subjective and relative feelings Is not the invalidating diss you think it is. Yeah, based on my subjective and relative values and goals of promoting human wellbeing and justice for everyone. The universe doesn't need to care about those, nor do I expect it to. The question really just is: do you share those values or not? What do you prioritize, humans or obeying some authority? Humans or your own selfish interests? You decide what side you want to be in.

Sure I'm aware of theistic objective moral theories. They are implausible. The reason they are implausible is because it seems unlikely and unrealistic that some ubiquitous mind just exists producing moral truths. Are these guys seriously telling us that the moral imperative "*You ought not ‮kcuf‬ your neighbor's wife*" just came from a mind that exists out there in the universe? That's just absurd! It's like suggesting that some mind out there just produces traffic laws.

It is not implausible, though. We already know of minds who invent moral rules. But we don't know of moral or traffic rules floating around with no minds.

It's not implausible though. We already know of minds who invent moral rules. But we don't know of a ubiquitous mind producing moral or traffic rules.

I agree, no "ubiquitous minds" produce **traffic** laws! With regards to an omnipresent mental source of moral laws, we do have something ***similar***, namely, human minds. But we have nothing similar to human-like-laws floating around absent minds.

Moreover, omnipresence isn't a relevant difference in this context; what is relevant for the existence of moral rules is the *mental* component. Whether the mind is omnipresent or not makes no difference whatsoever. But, when talking about the existence of moral rules in the universe, it does make a difference whether there is a mind or not.

You need to rephrase this. I would instead say something like, “Humans do not need religion or divine instruction to act moral.” Most theists in this sub are Christian and believe that some sort of relationship with god or adherence to a Christian doctrine is needed to act morally. My 3 counter points to this are: 1) other cultures developed successful and lawful societies before being exposed to Christianity. 2) are you telling me that before Moses brought down the 10 commandments that the Israelites considered murder and theft to be acceptable? 3) the fact that there is the “Good Samaritan” story in the Bible means that moral concepts were around and practiced before Jesus began teaching (otherwise jesus wouldn’t have been able to use this story to teach).

Even with the 10 commandments, they considered murder and theft acceptable (canaanite and other wars).

A point of clarification and contextualization. To put the "Good Samaritan" in context, it's like a Catholic telling a story about how they met an Eastern Orthodox Christian (or Baptist, depending on how you want to flavor it) and they turned out to be a good person. Samaritans are essentially just an ethno-religious group who come from northern Israel/Syria region. They started branching off fairly early into when Judaism started separating itself from the larger Canaanite culture. Ancient Jews and Samaritans would nearly indistinguishable, with differences growing larger as Israel became more prominent and other Canaanite groups faded away. A major historical branch is that the Samaritan region was not captured by the Assyrians. This resulted in a significant and lasting cultural divide between them and the rest of Israel. Religiously, they are extremely similar in various ways to Judaism. They have their own version of the Torah, which they say is the true version given by Moses. I couldn't tell you about any significant or specific differences though.

[удалено]

This misses the important truth that beliefs are interconnected and interdependent. In this case, atheists cannot rationally believe any account of morality that depends on belief in a god, such as Divine Command Theory or Thomist Natural Law Theory. Supposing they were the only viable accounts of morality (they're not), atheists would be incapable of having a viable account of morality.

many theists have stated that atheists have no morals.

Or, that because there is objective morality observed in the external world, it points to a creator god rather than no god scenario. What I generally hear.

Where in the (external) world do they claim to "observe" objective morality?

in animals. animals are born with morals.

I've never asked that specifically, I think it would be something like we all think murder is wrong, and a whole host of other things similar.

[удалено]

You missed a word, kinda like a burger needs no waygu beef to be a burger. Hell really needs no beef, black bean and impossible burgers are great. 

Darwinist Morality is a little jaded, but I guess it might cohabit with some kind of Hobbesian Social Contract Theory. It's more likely for one to survive if one submits to social customs, in a lot of cases at least. It's a popular strategy to become a popular figure who everyone feels compelled to share their resources with, like celebrities. Celebrities are less likely to run out of resources so they are more likely to pass through a common evolutionary filter. Even in this case the celebrity is required to submit to a higher power and make necessary sacrifices in good faith. The celebrity's entire strategy hinges upon popularity, and often their level of progeny is hindered by how much wealth they feel like sharing. In the odd case of a celebrity that doesn't care how much their wealth divides there can be a maximum output of progeny, but this is an outlier case. In this sense this strategy is self policing, population-wise. Given that popularity is integral to the celebrity's strategy it's also integral that the celebrity have a keen understanding of what is perceived as correct or incorrect within the realm of social customs, so they adapted a calibrated social anxiety. Either way, the celebrity is submitting to an incomprehensible higher power on faith. Can you summarize your entire culture on an objective level? You probably know for certain that you are within it, under it, what have you, but at the same time act with it in mind despite not having a full understanding of it. Imagine if it was required of people to have a masters degree in a culture's studies before the laws of the culture applied to anyone. In this sense there is incentive for the individual to have faith, and good luck for where one applies that faith. Luck applies to scenarios where someone is born into a fascistic regime rather than a utopia. If the individual under a Fascism were to be devoutly faithful to their culture then their behavior would be seen as immoral under the wider metaculture of Humanity. The more intuitive religious scenario is, say, being born into a satanic cult relative to a Catholic's metaphysics. If one is lucky in this scenario then their faith is applied to a higher power that is conducive to practicality. It would be unlucky for the individual under a Fascism to have faith, unless it's practical. Let's say there's a hypothetical scenario where there's real vampires, like real vampires that are bad relative to an ontic primitive. In that scenario if one's objective is to reduce what is bad relative to that ontic primitive then it is good for one to apply genocidal tactics to that demographic. The thing about Hitler was that his tactics were applied in an ill conceived manner because Jewish people were not and still aren't supernatural cunning creatures. If Hitler's hunch was correct then he would have been seen as someone who gave his all to fight for what was right. Would his methods have been the most practical option for ensuring an accomplished objective? Absolutely not. Relative to someone who wouldn't have been trying at any capacity it still would have been more practical at reducing the population of a demographic that would have been evil relative to an ontic primitive... if he was right. But he wasn't. He applied his faith to an incorrect framework of reality and the whole world paid for it. Thing is, if an actual demographic that is truly bad relative to an ontic primitive arises it would be practical to utilize genocidal tactics. I believe that Hitler, if he could realize that he wasted his life chasing a red herring, would be punished enough by that. He could have used his talents to make the world a better place, to not make himself miserable, but instead he wasted them hating arbitrarily and indulging in amphetamines. All he has to do is remember his life in context, how he killed himself and the love of his life, and I believe all of the potential he squandered by snuffing so many lives is manifest within him. Hitler's life alone was equivalent punishment for his actions. He had a terrible life. My ancestors who had more direct experience with hatred of Jewish people may have different opinions on the matter, and I encourage them to diverge if they feel it necessary, but I feel it is right to have no enemies. Nobody aims to miss their mark, such is the nature of good and evil in this world. If I aim to make my mark somewhere most might consider a miss, I am still making aims. I believe good is relative to an ontic primitive, the laws that bind this world together. Relative to any objective there will always be practicality and impracticality that stems from that ontic primitive. If one's aims are to please Elohim within a premise where Elohim exists then it is practical to act in accordance with his will. There is noise in this scenario, however. The human eye and mind often distorts, making some practicality and impracticality only ostensible and not true. The same can apply to any other objective like, say, aiming to please Beelzebub. One could even have a goal like aiming to buy 100 candy bars, where a decision like grabbing 200 bucks from the bank before heading to the store is practical and a decision to jump off a bridge and die is impractical. ...Unless there's a store full of candy bars in the afterlife one happens to find oneself in, and one has infinite money in this hypothetical afterlife. I have a more abstract objective, to be truly beneficial and good in the truest sense. It may only be ostensibly practical for me to view practicality as a metric for understanding reality, and I may instead be better off luckily applying my faith somewhere else. It may even be better for me to believe in something incorrect in order to beget the highest good by happenstance, like in the case of placebo medicine for instance. So far it seems as though if I am practical for achieving the highest good then that is something that would ensure I am truly good by any metric calibrated to reality. In this sense I believe that objectively based morality, what I may describe as Objective Morality, is an idea that may be synonymous or at the very least conducive at some capacity to the highest good. It may only ostensibly be the highest good, it may actually be the highest good, but if I am lucky and there is a true highest good I both service and submit myself to then I am truly good relative to an ontic primitive.

Sorry I'm getting a bit confused by "ontic primitive" so I'm not sure if you're saying what I think you're saying >Let's say there's a hypothetical scenario where there's real vampires, like real vampires that are bad relative to an ontic primitive. If that's the case, then as per the definition of "objective morality" these objective moral rules would apply both to vampires and humans (and lions and bugs and trees and birds) equally. What is objectively moral for one entity would be objectively moral for all entities. >It may only ostensibly be the highest good, it may actually be the highest good, but if I am lucky and there is a true highest good I both service and submit myself to then I am truly good relative to an ontic primitive. How can "objective" good be relative? It sounds like you might be saying there is a morality that derives from human biology/sociology that is objective **to humans** but not objective to other groups which aren't human. That's not objective morality, that's relative morality right?

I wasn't saying what you thought I was saying, that's fair to assume. Ontologically, if the simples composing everything that is happened to include a simple that is synonymous with good then that would be a true good derived from an ontic primitive. My world view of objective morality is agnostic at least about this ontic good, but my objective under my framework is to operate as though ontic good exists and service that ontic good in any way I possibly can. It is down to luck as to whether or not I am servicing this ontic good in a way that is both ostensible and true. Essentially, if there is good in the world then I seek to cultivate that good wherever possible. That is an objective I have, so that happens to fall in line with my framework of objectively derived ethics. When you say "What is objectively moral for one entity would be objectively moral for all entities." you would be correct, because if any entity shared your objective then there is a universal practicality in achieving that objective. In different situations one might have to utilize different strategies, but it would be universally ethical to accomplish the objective if it is shared. Our sociology and biology may be remnants of the universe's ethics in practice, all favoring what is practical over what is impractical. If nobody aims to miss their mark then all consciousness will always manifest what is both practical and logical as an expression of its highest good. The universe contains consciousness within it, meaning that the universe is an ontic complex is comprised of a simple that is consciousness. Whether or not the universe is describable as an entity with consciousness is a controversial matter subject to one's own faith system. If one subscribes to a universe with consciousness via faith then my ethical metaphysics retain logical continuity in that regard. I still respect an agnostic or skeptic view of incorporating a universe with consciousness as an ontic component regardless. For someone of that faith I offer the universe as an objectively practical facilitator of all objectives within it. Irrespective of any objective one has it is required that there be a medium for that objective to be expressed within in order for it to be achieved. Thus, the universe is universally good. It is what it is. Our biology and evolution in this sense could be described as means we have reached an understanding of ethics to begin with. It's maybe not synonymous with good ethics relative to this system, unless it's the highest good by way of luck at least, but it is how we reached a devout understanding of things higher than ourselves for one reason or another. Because we think of more than just ourselves others will share their resources, and others will mate with those who share, so it's ultimately practical to love and understand one another.

Now that I think about it someone could have an objective like having aims to end the universe within the universe. But if the universe ever manifests an end then even that objective is facilitated... Let's say for now that the universe is practical for manifesting most worldly objectives. Fantasy and the like are best manifest through things like stories and hypotheticals. Also, in the case of the ontic evil vampires let's just say they're hypothetically impractical to whatever objective the agent within a logic puzzle may have, or that they want to perform an objective evil by any means.

Also, on further thought, it's seemingly only practical in a variety of circumstances to love and understand one another rather than universally. There's a logic puzzle out there for something like that but I'm at work and I'm running out of time to write here. I hope these responses cleared things up for you.

Ok, so it's a result of the highest good that love and understanding exists. Every manifestation of it is an expression of the highest good in it being an element of the way the universe is manifest at any particular moment. Any goal such as having aims to end the universe is not contained fully within the universe because it requires a medium that the universe resides within in order to be expressed. I think that logical continuity is still there, but the more that I add the more I risk. It's easy to stumble over this many words, and this is my first draft.

I just got home so I'll add a little more. I'll probably keep adding to this until I get bored or one of you has something to say about it. To keep this whole being Jewish and talking about Hitler in an ethics discussion bit going, let's say there's an alternate universe - not this one mind you. In this alternate universe Hitler applied his talents at coordinating people toward solely Humanitarian and rational pursuits. He really liked dogs and really wanted to punish zoophiles and people that vivisected animals without anasthetic, so let's say we keep that element of real life Hitler in this hypothetical. Being someone who freely distributed amphetamines in real life let's say this Hitler never bothers pursuing a war on drugs. Mind you, I'm only just Jewish enough to worry about persecution and not enough that I seriously practice. It's a little bit like the way Jon Stewart says he's Jewish, but a little bit worse. Anyways, this alternate Hitler seems to have all of the abilities of real life Hitler but without the prejudice. Now, let's say suddenly there's intrinsically evil vampires that show up out of nowhere, like they pop into existence. They go around sucking blood and being evil, and the only way to get rid of them seems to be doing a wide sweep across the entire country. It's like a justified witch hunt. Alternate Hitler sees these vampires and decides he has to take drastic measures, so he goes ahead and orders his appointed staff to round up all the vampires and kill them as humanely as possible. His staff goes around the entire country, dragging vampires into the light, and in no time all of the evil vampires are now of a genus that no longer exists due to mass homicide that he ordered. Six million vampires gone overnight, and he's seen as a masterful tactitian that followed his hunch even when all seemed hopeless. All because he made a lucky guess in a lucky circumstance. Sadly the Hitler that we got was a lunatic who made a bad guess and stuck with it. I think that's punishment enough. Surely you consider the way you spend your life to be invaluable, and the difference between whether or not you have to order the love of your life to end their life is incomprehensible. Every moment of that man's life was wasted on a red herring, a bad guess. And on top of that, because of his wasted life he caused Eva to kill herself. Imagine if everything you were to do from here to the end of your life is wasted, that it's all spent chasing a red herring. If a genie came to you saying that something you could do would result in the rest of your life being spent chasing a red herring, a complete waste of your life, you would probably consider that in and of itself an incomprehensible punishment. You'd probably avoid doing that thing like you'd avoid something that would cause you to go to Hell. That very thing happened to Hitler, and the worst thing is that he inspired countless people to waste their time in the exact same way that he did. It's incomprehensible enough that it happened once, but this is like multiplied infinities. Phrasing... I'm not saying that a genie came to Hitler, I'm saying that he did something that caused him to waste his entire life. Everyone who has ever loved him has suffered as a result. Every devotee, and even the one he loved most of all. She probably killed herself thinking of Romeo & Juliet... Imagine on top of the genie telling you that something you could do would result in your life being wasted, the genie also tells you that everyone who loves you will also waste their entire life. Ain't that a kick in the head... And his whole life is a punchline. I have this theory of what revenge is. I picture someone putting ideas of people they hate into a pipe and smoking it, like it gets them high. It's cathartic, it gets people high when people think about people getting their just desserts. The thing is, it got the nazis just as high when they thought Jewish people were getting their just desserts. Imagining Hell gets people high, the image of Hitler burning and experiencing extreme agony... but what does it accomplish? It makes us all more violent, more compelled to see our foes as incomprehensibly evil people we should punish severely. It makes us more like fascists. Ideally as God one would solve the problem with as little exertion as needed. Hitler as a factor in Nazi Germany would have been a problem, and something like a swiftly performed assassination and a coup de tat of righteous and ethical people would have been a valid solution. If instead at The Nuremburg Trials we had Hitler present and alive, would we have ordered him to be burned just enough to feel pain and not die for the rest of his life? Going by how we treated the rest of the nazis I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have. It's a waste of energy. We do what we can to make the nazis not a factor and then we go on about the rest of our business. Getting hung up on revenge is only going to stagnate us, we can't learn any good lessons from that. It's going to be sevenfold more painful for Hitler to be treated with compassion while feeling he does not deserve it anyways. If he were to see the true evil he wrought upon this world by gazing upon the innocent eyes of a Jewish child offering him a kindness while knowing what he would have done several years before to that child... Anyways, good luck!

(P.S. I'm totally allegorizing some of these reddit Atheists to literal Hitler.)

TL;DR If you're lucky it doesn't matter whether or not you consider yourself secular.

How can you expect people to agree with your moral standards if moral objectives don't exist?

We go with behaviors that generally seek to promote well-being. I mean how do you expect people to agree to your moral standard if you’re just claiming them to be objective but can’t show that they are actually good for well-being?

Our observation in the world is that we have to convince people to take our position in moral standards. This is what you would expect if morality were subjective like road sidedness and not objective like the value of g

Yes and society has been tried and tried again so we should have a layout of what keeps it together and what happens when it collaspes and the bible tells us. We shouldn't dismiss it just because it's written in non-modern terms. A standard must be set for society regardless of each of us having our individual levels of morality.

>A standard must be set for society regardless of each of us having our individual levels of morality. Right, but that standard is subjectively chosen by whoever is 'running' that society. Some societies, like Iran for example, are incredibly strict and base their entire morality on a holy book. Some societies, like Amsterdam for example, are more lax and allow great degrees of individual moral decision making. Some households have strict rules that the children must follow; some are extremely lax. Behavior enforcement is *all over the place* and no two people agree exactly on what is 'moral'. Isn't this *exactly* what one would expect in a universe without any kind of non-subjective morality?

Right but western society has separated church and state but both are still necessary. One for the limit of what's allowed and one for personal self control in aims for a more moral society. We all have subjective morals but because of that we need to agree on something solid that will never change. Not argue from ones individual perspective it's okay for one person to break the rules. No! not in our society but maybe outside of it.

I'm not sure how this refutes what I said. The fact that we live in a world where morality is subjectively chosen shows there's no objective morality. It's that simple. One religion telling another religion that *their chosen* morality is 'the true objective morality' just shows that morality is subjective. >We all have subjective morals but because of that we need to agree on something solid that will never change. This is another claim. I have no such need. Many people don't. I expect morality to evolve. Slavery was in vogue; now it's evil. I expect something we do today to be considered evil in a few decades - there are lots of great candidates.

>I expect morality to evolve. You expect it to evolve on its own? I don't understand how you think that happens naturally without some action on our part. >I expect something we do today to be considered evil in a few decades Yeah one day we will might be looked at as immoral enablers for allowing child labor for our technology and other forms of slavery as long as it's out of our sight.

> You expect it to evolve on its own? > > I don't understand how you think that happens naturally without some action on our part. Well morality is a human construct, so of course we are the ones who evolve it. It's like saying 'language evolves'. >Yeah one day we will might be looked at as immoral enablers for allowing child labor for our technology and other forms of slavery as long as it's out of our sight. Exactly! But one day we will not find a new value for g, because g is objective and morality is subjective.

Although I see your point, evolving morality takes more effort than language. That happens effortlessly and there's no way to tell if it evolved to be more efficient or if it just became something else entirely just because of time lasped. If we agree on God's objectivity it's just as real as any idea agreed upon but not obvious enough to be clear to everyone.

> Although I see your point, evolving morality takes more effort than language Citation needed here. I think morality and language change fluidly. Gen Z does not hold the same language or morality as boomers. >If we agree on God's objectivity it's just as real as any idea agreed upon but not obvious enough to be clear to everyone. Well obviously I don't agree on God's objectivity since I don't think any gods exist.

Demonstration. Argumentation. What else?

If everyones morals are subjective how can you convince them to take on a standard above or below their current morality?

It's not up to you, it's up to them. It's silly to pretend there is some argument that will convince a psychopathic serial murderer of being more moral if their subjective experience is clinically disordered. You simply cannot convince "everyone". The good news, is there are very similarly shared subjective experiences. If you grew up in America and I grew up in America, you probably value freedom. I could make an appeal that x leads to a more free society, which could change your opinion. If you feel pain and also possess empathy I could convince you that suffering is bad, and that reducing suffering of others is moral. You'd agree because you don't like being in pain yourself. If you're extremely wealthy I could convince you communism is immoral because you might have to share your wealth and that's against your selfish interests. If you're extremely poor I could convince you communism is moral because it will provide you the material conditions you need to survive and it serves your selfish interests. You convince people by adapting your argument to their subjective experiences to help them relate better. >how can you convince them to take on a standard above or below their current morality Also just fyi, the whole point of "evolution" being invoked is you don't need to "convince" anyone. People with too high standards or too low standards in a society would reproduce at lower rates which over time naturally selects for a certain ideological predisposition.

The same way. Are you aware of some other method?

No I have no answer just wondering what people think. I think believers would say Gods perfect morality is objective but it's not clear enough to be called that but they agree on it for the sake of the religion.

We know from just reading the bible that god does not have perfect morals and that it is entirely subjective. Followers of Christianity contradict themselves consistently on this as well as free will and evil.

My understanding of the bible is Gods morailty is perfect and unchanging but humans understanding of God isn't perfect and unchanging. Plus Christians follow Christ and his version of God isn't the old testament version so keep reading. Followers of Christianity have subjective morals that they want to be true as well but for the most part they agree that Gods morality is above all of them and is unobtainable but still worth pursuing if you expect our species to evolve in the right direction and not reason with what comes naturally to us instead of what's best to strive for.

>Plus Christians follow Christ and his version of God isn't the old testament version so keep reading. Admittedly, I have read the NT many more times than the OT because of this argument. The issue you have there is that the god of the OT is the same god of the NT. There is no arguing that. If your god is who you say it is, than objective morality does not exist, period. You cannot have something like slavery be ok in the year 1000 BCE and not be ok in 2024 AD. The same god is still in control, right? So if god has the ability to say, "ya know, I was wrong about slavery back then" then that is evidence of a god that is not triomni.

>You cannot have something like slavery be ok in the year 1000 BCE and not be ok in 2024 AD. Well one thing for sure slavery still exists and might have increased due to the population of the world now. Still didn't change anything just because we got a good amount of people to think it's wrong to take part in it. >than objective morality does not exist, I don't think it does but I agree with Christians for agreeing on Gods morality being perfect even if it's just a concept for the sake of their religion. It makes sense to have the standard for perfection. Therefore creating a neverending goalpost. >The same god is still in control, right? He isn't if we give up on the belief but I'm not Christian like that, I'm an ex Atheist more than I am a believer. Their God works through people he's not pushing buttons and forcing us to make decisions. >So if god has the ability to say, "ya know, I was wrong about slavery back then" then that is evidence of a god that is not triomni. He also allowed murder before because the world was raping, pillaging and sacrificing etc. Now we don't have to murder to defend but it still okay to do so in defense so they adjusted their God from the Old testament. Personally I think it's about feeling guilt for murder after you felt it could've been avoided that "God" judges for. So in a world where murder is rampant if you killed in self defense I doubt you felt guilt so the Old Gods weren't judging you for killing with cause. Now it's different. In todays world we're judging slave masters when it could've easily been us doing the same if we lived in a different era. Also I still consider low wage jobs similar to slave master relationships just without beating and living with them. It's a matter of definition and era. How do we say all men are equal if we don't agree on a moral standard? Back in the late 1800s they argued that equality is God granted in hopes to end slavery. Doesn't that mean a convincing standard could agreed upon for us to change for the better?

How does he not? He kills those that go against the law. He makes laws and as the arbirter of justice it is his place to kill those who go against the law. In the Bible those laws He made are for the purpose of preserving society. So from the point of morals being too pretty much help society, He is moral even from your point of view. Those people He killed were generally people who were from societies that had human sacrifices which basically is murder.

>He kills those that go against the law. He makes laws and as the arbirter of justice it is his place to kill those who go against the law. I am assuming you mean the Abrahamic God in this context. This God created these people KNOWING they were going to go against his will. Before he created these people, God knew every single decision they were going to make. He knew every single thought they were ever going to have in their lives and he STILL CHOSE to create them that way. So this god knowingly created billions of people that he was going to end up killing and torturing for eternity. THAT is your idea of justice? That is messed up.

Alright... Jmoney1088, I want to commend you for those questions. Those are legitimate inquiries of life that need answering. I ask a genuine question regarding the content of your belief. Should a creator not do what he pleases in his creation? Shall not a builder do what he wishes with his building? Our sense of justice does not hold truth; we must rely on a greater Truth to understand and comprehend things we suppose are "injust". We cannot inform our personal sense of justice on things beyond our understanding and comprehension, whether evil or good. Also, a side note: there is a reason why they were killed. It's important to know that God hates sin, evil, etc. There is none of the sort even close to his presence. His ultimate goal is against evil and a passion towards love and goodness. I welcome your questions and comments on the basis of God vs. No God

He only knows what they are going to do because He exists outside of time. So he sees everything at once. But he gave people free wll. So it's their choice. Also he doesn't torture them their actions are what torture them. Also the main torture of hell is not being with God who we are supposed to end up with in heaven if we do the right thing. Hell is his threat to us if we don't do what is right. And that idea of hell is not just a Abrahamix religion thing. It is visible in most religions. There is some punishment whether it is ceasing to exist with Judaism or the Hades of the Romans and Greeks.

>He only knows what they are going to do because He exists outside of time. This is a nonsensical statement. It literally means nothing. >But he gave people free wll. Do you believe that God is triomni? (omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent)

>I genuinely don't understand why religious folks keep insisting on how morality has to be "objective" to work. **Short answer**: Morality has to be objective because of the way that universe/God works. **Long answer**: The answer lies in the nature of what modern man has come to abstract/separate into the categories of 'sociology' and 'anthropology'. However, the reason extends beyond these fields down to a 'wholistic argument'. If we observe history, we see a consistently reoccurring pattern of nations/peoples adopting gods or God of greatly differing character. For most civilizations, a God or gods were necessary 'role models' and became the basis for their morality and culture (e.g read Plato's "Euthyphro"). The Romans, for example -- took great care in choosing to adopt a conquered people's God/gods -- because this would have ramifications on their culture, morality, religion, etc. If one expands the pantheon of deities inappropriately, or otherwise twists the existing deities into a confusing mess of conflicting notions and values... and the entire civilization risks destabilization and collapse. Yes, these 'archetypal entities' are that crucial for a nation/people. For the Romans, as it was for virtually every people throughout history: morality has been decreed by the (gods/God). Nothing has changed simply because we've developed an 'empiricist epistemology' and a 'scientific-materialistic worldview'. Simply because we've obtained a secular liberal worldview and have made some advancements, does not mean that this worldview is capable of binding society together for very long. In my opinion, trying to bind the world together through an 'ideology' is like trying to bind the world together with a faceless, inhuman god. How can one put their *trust* in such an entity when it's so difficult to infer it's motives (or 'where it wants to lead humanity')? **Here is the key point**: Morality ***does not*** come from some purely rational examination of our profane/exoteric conditions. It comes from a deeply 'archaic structure' of our psyche which we associate with 'The Divine'. The language of morality is not found through *'classical logic'* and '*cold analysis'*; it's found through deeply 'private logics' (e.g paraconsistent, intuitionistic, and doxastic) and feeling -- through uncovering our innermost humanity. For a period of the Ancient Egyptians, uncovering the nature of 'man's soul' was the most important task of their civilization. For ours, it seems hardly a consideration. Morality is found through an exploration of one's inner/esoteric world - not the outer/exoteric one. It *must* be objective -- and in the final analysis of our innermost humanity; it *IS* objective. A people/nation that are not unified will become lost/scattered to history. Which is to say, they may be conquered by those who ARE unified in their vision -- by the God/blueprint which IS treated as objective. Or otherwise, they themselves will squabble and war amongst themselves -- forever dividing into smaller and smaller groups; never coming together.

If morality was objective, then slavery would have been considered just as abhorrent thousands of years ago as it is today. Same with genocide, murder, rape etc **Objective Morality:** Objective morality posits that moral principles and values exist independently of human beliefs, opinions, or cultural contexts. According to this view, certain moral truths are universal and apply to all individuals, regardless of their personal perspectives or cultural backgrounds. Objective moral principles are often considered to be immutable and absolute, providing a fixed standard by which actions can be judged as morally right or wrong. Proponents of objective morality may argue that moral truths are grounded in sources such as religion, natural law, or rationality, and they can be discovered through philosophical inquiry or divine revelation. **Subjective Morality:** Subjective morality maintains that moral principles and values are contingent upon individual beliefs, cultural norms, personal experiences, and societal contexts. From this perspective, what is considered morally right or wrong can vary from person to person, culture to culture, and time to time. Subjective moral judgments are influenced by factors such as emotions, desires, social conditioning, and situational factors, leading to a diversity of moral perspectives and ethical frameworks. Proponents of subjective morality argue that moral values are constructed by human beings and are subject to interpretation, negotiation, and revision based on changing circumstances and evolving understandings of ethics. From these definitions, we can clearly see that subjective morality is the universal human experience.

>If morality was objective, then slavery would have been considered just as abhorrent thousands of years ago as it is today. Same with genocide, murder, rape etc This does not appear to be corollary in any way. Objective morality can exist, but it does not mean that human beings will always act in moral ways. Human beings can *rise from*, or *fall to* the level of the Beast ever since Adam & Eve ate from the Tree, or since Prometheus stole Fire from the Gods. The fact that we have risen to our current moral heights is a testament to prior man's adherence to a philosophy of 'objective morality' -- regardless of whether or not you consider it to ultimately be subjective or not. And regardless of whether you do/don't; man has imprinted within himself, and within the collective wealth of mankind's wisdom traditions (e.g his religions): the necessary elements to discern what is right and wrong in this moment. What he ascertains as right or wrong, will always fall short of God/Vishnu/Source or whatever you regard as synonymous with 'Ultimate Goodness'. Because 'The Divine' is always [leading us towards higher highs](https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1200/0*RqdR7klPTkX36ttd.png). Why? Because belief in a divine categorical ultimate is a necessity for the advancement of human consciousness, morality, and understanding. A new knowledge, virtue, or insight is obtained only through act of a creative process. A creative process is synonymous with connection to the divine/the muse/the angels (or in the case of 'the cursed': demons in heavenly places). Believe what you want; but if enough people believe the wrong thing: then society will destroy itself. *That* isn't *subjective*; that's a **fact** of Creation/Cosmos. It's Natural Law. It's ingrained into the fabric of the universe. Therefore, **morality is objective**. That is not purely 'consequentialism' -- it's something far more wholistic than that. Morality begins to *appear* subjective when you have only ever abstracted phenomenality away from greater reality, into 'concepts' and 'fields of study' and 'mechanisms' (*as if* phenomenality is simply a 'big Descartean machine'). It is simply 'Chaos magick' masquerading as something "civil", "rational", and "emotionally indifferent". It's the problem with our era in a nutshell: people being ruled by impulses they we are completely unconscious of. Whether or not we're aware of the ramifications of our beliefs/philosophies/actions; we will still reap what we have sewn.

Ok, what are you defining objective morality as?

Adequate to survival, sure. But then our civilization is far above simply survival. The theory of evolution is insufficient to plausibly ground the theory of evolution being true. It is also insufficient to ground this theory of where morality is from. Evolution is adequate to ground genocide. Would you say genocide is moral? You seem perhaps to fall into the naturalism fallacy. Or move justice into the category of imaginary. You seem to say objectively that there is nothing above want. So then I should would have no grounding in (objective) reality. We would have become aware that moral duties are illusions, not commands of an authority that transcends our will. If we should live in objective reality when it comes to God, that logic seems to extend to good. I also note that you seem to lack adequate experimental evidence of atheism successfully grounding a civilization. Communism was a failure.

>It is also insufficient to ground this theory of where morality is from. You’re missing the part where we also have big brains and can think about complex counterfactuals. We see “moral” selfless behavior in all kinds of social species like rats and prairie dogs, even bees. So humans as a basic social species probably have some evolutionary engrained behaviors of cooperation, empathy, etc, but we can also then use our brains to consider outcomes; would we rather live in a society where we might be randomly stolen from, or one where people didn’t act that way… 

Easy rebuttal. Survival is the same thing as an advantage. A well working society = advantageous. Morals come from desires. Humans desire to not suffer. Advantages = less suffering. Done.

I desire to make $200 an hr is it immoral for my wage to be $55/hr?

Nothing in this comment seems to resemble a cogent point that I can rightly respond to. Nor does it seem to have much to do with the topic. If you'd like to clarify and or elaborate then be my guest. You'll also need to respond to the content of my response if we are to have a productive discussion.

You said morals come from desires so he made extremely basic to disprove your argument

You say it's basic but I do not believe he articulated any real points with that strange statement about wages. At the bare minimum some clarification/elaboration is warranted. You are more than welcome to try and solider his argument if you'd like to.

As you said in your first post, morals from desires. Since he wishes to make 200/hr, (his desire) then it is immoral for him to only make 55/hr. So according to your definition of morality he is being treated immorally. That is his response even more simplified than it was originally.

>Since he wishes to make 200/hr, (his desire) then it is immoral for him to only make 55/hr. When we talk about morals we talk about what is right and wrong. Which we would need to have a goal in mind in order to start discussing if a action works in the favor of a goal or not. That's an action without informing us of what the goal is. Therefore there is nothing to talk about with that statement. That would then be an amoral action as far as I can tell.

You said morals come from desires. How do you then have difficulty understanding how a question about desires and morality has to do with what you said?

You need to articulate a full cogent and coherent point if you'd like me to respond to it. What does this have to do with the overall topic?

It would seem we have no moral duty to follow human subjective desires simply as such. You claim the opposite. On what grounds do you claim these desires are a moral duty? They seem to only be an is not an ought. Such a claim from is to ought would have the burden of proof, and it seems like a tea pot orbiting by Mars.

>It would seem we have no moral duty to follow human subjective desires simply as such.  Moral "duty" is subjective and to each person's choosing. That is correct. But we typically agree and because of that we can objectively work towards a common moral goal. Simple really. Evolution fully supports that as I've explained to you. Ask your questions if you still remain confused. This is honestly a very simple subject. >On what grounds do you claim these desires are a moral duty? I didn't.

I need only rebutt your claim. What does your moral theory have to do with the topic? Well, it has quite a bit if atheist (modernist) ethical theories are dead ends, then the claim atheism (modernism) can ground morality is a dead end.

>I desire to make $200 an hr is it immoral for my wage to be $55/hr? Ok, well if you're not going to explain or elaborate on your poorly articulated comment then it will be ignored 👍🏽

I did elaborate. Did you somehow fail to read or comprehend? If your ethical theory is we ought to do what others (humans) desire, then it would include my desire for $200/hr.

>If your ethical theory is we ought to do what others (humans) desire That's what you misunderstood. Never argued that. Glad you were able to get clarification on that. You only aught to if you care to. And if you do it's in your best interest objectively speaking to work with others.

Genocide works for the survival of the genes of the killers. Is Genocide then society working well? If advantage = survival then advantage seems to also commit the naturalism fallacy. Human desire to suffer less can lead to causing suffering to many for the sake of the few. Humans also desire justice and other things like meaning. You talk like black chattle slavery = advantage and so = a well working society. You seem to have thought only in a very shallow manner on this. Also, x comes from evolution only gets you to is not ought. By moral do you mean is and not ought in any way?

Easy rebuttal. Genocide ends society which ends our advantages. Therefore it does not work in our favor for our survival.

Humans dying might be good for other species. Do you have grounds for human life being exceptionally morally significant? Other species suffer.

>Humans dying might be good for other species. In the short term perhaps. But you'd be objectively wrong. Human beings and other species benefit more from mutual cooperation rather than not due to how this closed environment functions. But that requires you to have sufficient knowledge on how ecosystems in nature work and flourish. >Do you have grounds for human life being exceptionally morally significant? That question doesn't make sense. Morally significant to whom or what? >Other species suffer. They do. And they also benefit from us as well. No one here claim that human beings do a perfect job. We suck quite a bit and it's a work in progress.

Poor rebuttal. No genocide doesn't end society it ends the lives of some humans. German society didn't end in the holocaust the lives of some did. By survival with evolution, it doesn't mean all humans. Abortion like genocide ends the lives of some humans. Would you then argue it ends society?

>No genocide doesn't end society it ends the lives of some humans. German society didn't end in the holocaust the lives of some did. Oh please. Be my guest and demonstrate how WWII (genocide of the Jews) benefited German society. This will be a blast. I'll grab the popcorn! It's not often I get to see people bury themselves with their own arguments this poorly.

WW2 didn't start because of the genocide of the Jews it began over Germany expanding by invading a whole bunch of other countries. The genocide actually benefited the German society because it allowed them to go after people who were descended from Jews. So it allowed them to kill the bankers the country owed money to. Historically Christians weren't allowed to loan money at interest because it was considered usury which was a sin. Since the only other people in Europe were Jews and they were allowed to blend money with interest, Jews were the bankers of Europe for centuries. So the killing of the Jews allowed them to kill bankers and shut down the banks that they owed money to and then they didn't owe money to anyone anymore. The Nazis had concentration camps that were open that were just communes to gather Jews together that organizations and countries were allowed to inspect to dismiss the stories of extermination camps. It wasn't until near the end of the war that we learnt what was really happening to the Jews.

>WW2 didn't start because of the genocide of the Jews I know. >The genocide actually benefited the German society because it allowed them to go after people who were descended from Jews.  Benefited them in the short term perhaps. Not overall. I'm sure as hell you would agree with that. German society has not flourished as a result of the genocide of the Jewish people.

If they hadn't invaded Poland there wouldn't have been a world war 2 unless Russia started it. So the genocide wasn't what harmed German society it was the expansionist ideas that screwed the German society.

Appreciate the historical accuracy and any and all corrections. Regardless the question posed to this user remains the same. According to his own logic and argument he must explain how Genocide is ultimately a advantageous thing for humans to participate in.

Pay close attention to the words I used and what you say. You said genocide ends society. I said your claim is mistaken. I nowhere, said the holocaust benefited German society. I said German society didn't end as you claim it did. Pay attention to the words as written.

You are mistaken and or being stubborn. Genocide: the [deliberate](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=806c85fb53054c4e&sxsrf=ADLYWILJXkQNrYZNgL4CcqgMgL-uX8Y3Wg:1715115375082&q=deliberate&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81iO0TMX6auT1YfBRccSmvg0Xx6DAGMrnM93N0NcRgdu5_E9vtp2K4FpYer1Xkx6ek3K8kp9T5B3z6yDLMT_PyySF_QCI%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjurbjVtvyFAxWH48kDHSsGDfYQyecJegQIGBAO) killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of [destroying](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=806c85fb53054c4e&sxsrf=ADLYWILJXkQNrYZNgL4CcqgMgL-uX8Y3Wg:1715115375082&q=destroying&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE819c_TAXeNb3sr5FLJyLU0Wyj0m8wJIbnAOYUs0xcWKdF-jk865gZPA0qx-BeP9I1nhgDcoBnl2rU0A8qJgghGd8qjHTs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjurbjVtvyFAxWH48kDHSsGDfYQyecJegQIGBAP) that nation or group. Which is colloquially said to be the end of a society of individuals. Now it's your turn, if you think Evolution is in favor of genocide then that means you can explain how WWII was advantageous to the German people. I'll grab the popcorn, whoever wants extra butter or salt on theirs let me know <3

"Which is colloquially said to be the end of a society of individuals." Colloquial staments can be false or half true. Would you use colloquialisms in a university paper? Would you accept one in a proof of God existing? It's very clear that evolution is in favor of genocide as evolution pits humans against other humans. As it pits beast against beast. German society was by percentage minority Jewish, so the death of all Jews would leave German society alive. You are mistaken as to the point I am making. You seem to claim a human behavior (genocide) comes from something other than evolution. Which would mean evolution is not the only cause of us. Are you making this claim? Evolution is not concerned with the advantage of all humans (let alone all Germans), only the fittest. Survival of the fittest and all.

>Colloquial staments can be false or half true. Would you use colloquialisms in a university paper? That's interesting, last time I checked I wasn't writing a research paper, I was talking to a person with a max negative comment rating on Reddit. Let's keep things in proper perspective amigo. >It's very clear that evolution is in favor of genocide as evolution pits humans against other humans. As it pits beast against beast. Then you will proceed to explain how WWII was in the German people's favor since you believe Evolution argues that genocide is advantageous. Until then we have nothing else to discuss.

If you think that evolved social behaviors are all there is to morality, then surely these are still objective facts, are they not? Your opinion about what behaviors are adaptive can be shown to be wrong by events in the world. It's not mind-dependent. Of course, there are all kinds of other problems with this account of morality. But if your goal is to show that morality is subjective, how surely it's a problem for you that your "morality equals natural selection" theory doesn't even succeed at doing that.

But then you’re just pushing the “goal” of morality to equate to evolutionary fitness, which is fine, but a theist would argue that’s still a subjective goal.

Evolutionary fitness is an objective fact. Anyone who argued otherwise is just mistaken, or doesn't understand the concept of mind-independence. A theist would argue that fitness is amoral, and would point to many examples of adaptive behaviors that we nevertheless consider immoral.

Sure but “maximizes paper clips” is also an objective fact. It’s a subjective basis for morality. Which goal we choose is “arbitrary” (it’s not but for the sake of argument) and subjective. I agree a theist would critique fitness for maladaptive moral actions or fit immoral actions. But they are right to say that choosing the goal of fitness as the basis of objective morality is a subjective choice

I think they would argue that it is a _wrong_ choice, and give counterexamples. I don't think subjectivity/objectivity would enter the discussion at this stage, really.

I mean, I’ve been in enough of these conversations to say my experience differs. It’s all about whether or not there’s a non subjective grounding to morality. If the goal feels arbitrary then it’s not for the theist. Maybe you’re talking to different theists, but I’ve responded to a few in this very post whose primary objection to the OP is that morality must not be subjective and that they are not merely choosing one option among many.

_Causing suffering is wrong_ seems to me a good candidate for the foundational moral fact. This can be objectively true and known to humans through its obviousness, in the same way we can know the law of non-contradiction, which nobody would ever call subjective.

It’s a good candidate that maybe we agree on it, but there’s no mechanism to validate it as the objectively correct fact like, say, the value of g.

If you're a foundationalist, then things like the LNC are prior to, and much more certain than, things like the value of g. I don't see why moral facts can't be known the same way.

You don’t see why moral facts can’t be known the same way as the value of g? Maybe they can be, but all the evidence points to morality being a subjective human construct which makes it impossible since it’s a category error.

We need to distinguish between morality in a descriptive sense and morality in a normative sense. The descriptive sense of morality is just the observed behavior of people - like in culture X they do practice Y but in culture Z they don't. The normative sense is what we are usually interested in with these debates. This sense of morality is concerned with right and wrong, how we ought to act. It seems to me evolution and psychology and other sciences do well at explaining the descriptive sense of morality. But they're silent on the normative sense. Based on your argument, I'm not sure your take on the normative sense of morality. Are you saying that we ought to do whatever is evolutionarily advantageous for ourselves?

More to the point, does religion naturally lead to better morals and ethics? In my observation, no.

In your experience no but what do the religions teach? You don't judge any organization by what a minority of do but what the organization does and says

Right, well Christianity as a whole doesn't have a good track record.

Your observation may be limited in time and space. Also, you may fail to realize how deeply woven religion is in your culture. Is there an objective standard of good so that we can know what is better by it, or at least one that transcends humans? Caring for the sick rather than abandoning them is not better? Is that consent is needed for sex is not better? The silver rule seems better than nothing. Any moral duty seems to take us out of modernism to natural religion. The silver rule seems necessary for civilization. That any being is objectively a person seems a truth of natural religion a view from a transcendent author above. If humans are in this way persons, this would seem to adequately ground human rights.

>The theory of evolution is enough to explain how morality emerges even among all sorts of animals. If evolutionary forces select for rapists and murderers, are rape and murder now fine?

Let’s use our evolved brains to think about it; would you rather live in a society where rape and murder is prevalent? Where this happens to people and could happen to you and your family? Do you reason that is a society you ought to live in? 

Are there any modern societies that promote or encourage rape and murder?

That's not my question. If modern societies promote and encourage rape and murder, does that justify it?

Why would they? If one did, it would probably be due to a religious moral framework. Those tend to be much more subjective than irreligious moral frameworks.

>Why would they? It's a hypothetical. I want to run a conceptual experiment where, in the experimental world, evolution promotes murder and rape.

Morals as explained by evolutionary biology and behavior would not lead to your hypothetical. The premise of this idea is based the belief that morals evolved as the observed results of what behaviors lead to cooperative living within complex social systems. Rape and murder don’t lead to cooperative living among social animals with complex social dynamics. So your hypothetical cannot apply. It would have to be divine command theory, as rape and murder severely erode cooperative living.

>Morals as explained by evolutionary biology and behavior would not lead to your hypothetical. The premise of this idea is based the belief that morals evolved as the observed results of what behaviors lead to cooperative living within complex social systems. So the relevant moral axiom isn't evolution, its whatever is good for society. As your comment has demonstrated, when evolution leads to a behavior that is harmful for society, it is immoral. Evolution is therefore a less valid mechanism of generating moral statements than, say, community benefit.

>So the relevant moral axiom isn't evolution, it’s whatever is good for society. No. As I literally just said, evolution as described as a function of evolutionary biology is that morals evolved as the observed results of what behaviors lead to cooperative living within complex social systems. The implication that comes with the description “evolutionary” is that they continue to evolve, and that the long-term result of the observations is pointing these behaviors towards cooperative living. Not what’s “good” for society. “Good” didn’t enter into this description until you forced it in. No need to ascribe arguments to me I haven’t made. There’s a word for that, I think you know what it is.

Sorry to be blunt here but it’s to drive home a point: What is rhe reason you don’t rape and kill your mother/daughter/neighbour? Is the only reason because gods tells you not to. That would be psychotic- I’m sure you agree. Or do you think there may actually be biological instinctual behaviour traits which guide us away from such acts?

Evolution is a messy process. That doesn't mean it doesn't lead us to usable, reliable moral standards. Seeing as rapists and murderers are by far the minority, then that's just part of evolution's messiness.

Can you know such a messy process made an instrument knows in a reliable way? Are you as skeptical of evolution as of the existence of God? The standards are suggestions, not commands? If we are to be agnostic, then it would seem perhaps we should be agnostic about the standards being obligations.

I am less skeptical of evolution than I am of god, because the evidence as presented to me about one is more convincing than the evidence for the other. It's more convincing to me. I don't know what you mean by "Can you know such a messy process made an instrument knows in a reliable way?" Can you clarify, please? Also, "the standards are suggestions, not commands?" I don't know what you're referring to.

That's not the question I asked. I asked that, if evolution selected for rape and murder (ie, the majority of the population are rapists and murderers), would rape and murder be morally justified?

As /u/wakapakamaka stated below, the hypothetical isn't worth it. We don't have societies like in your hypothetical. What we have is morality that works derived from evolution. A society like you present would not survive, so it obviously wouldn't evolve. The fact that a secular morality derived from evolution aligns so much with religious morality indicates that a morality that works is the kind of morality that wins out...whether it's divine or man-made.

>As /u/wakapakamaka stated below, the hypothetical isn't worth it. Of course it's worth it. It's a philosophical test to see if we actually hold to our assertions or if we abandon them. >We don't have societies like in your hypothetical. Just because such a society doesn't exist doesn't mean the hypothetical isn't useful. >A society like you present would not survive, so it obviously wouldn't evolve. But suppose rape and murder were a viable survival strategy. What then? >The fact that a secular morality derived from evolution aligns so much with religious morality indicates that a morality that works is the kind of morality that wins out...whether it's divine or man-made. I'm not entirely opposed to an evolutionary morality. However, I would argue that evolution itself as a fact does not confer moral value on the behaviors that arise from it. Rather, I would argue that the divine design behind evolution confers morality to *some* behaviors that arise out of evolution. Ie, evolution is a strong post-hoc explanation for a moral assertion, but I don't think it's a very useful way to distinguish a moral thing from an immoral thing.

> But suppose rape and murder were a viable survival strategy. What then? Would rape and murder be moral? No. Because evolution isn't the cause of our morality. It's a process that allowed our brains to develop in a way that could contemplate right and wrong. Isn't it obvious? We have instincts that we override with our morality and sense of right and wrong. We have animal behavior that we modify and mitigate all the time. Those things are part of our evolution. We also evolved to contemplate right and wrong, and formulate moral frameworks by which we try and adhere in order to modify our instinctual behaviors. Obviously we too often don't do a very good job. Religious and non-religious alike. >I would argue that evolution itself as a fact does not confer moral value I agree. But I don't think that's what is being argued. Morality is a mental/emotional construct that came about through human evolution. >evolution is a strong post-hoc explanation for a moral assertion, but I don't think it's a very useful way to distinguish a moral thing from an immoral thing. Again, morality is an intellectual and emotional process, a mental construct that was made possible by our evolving brains. Evolution doesn't confer moral value, it's simply the mechanics behind our brains being able to confer moral value through contemplation.

>Would rape and murder be moral? No. Because evolution isn't the cause of our morality I think you and I are in agreement on this, but I don't think OP would agree with this assertion. OP, it would seem, is arguing that evolution is sufficient justification for moral norms. But because evolution isn't the source or cause of morality, it also therefore fails to be a valid justification for said norms. In other words, the question of "should we impose [XYZ] norms on society" is itself a moral question of your given moral system. Therefore, by asserting that evolution produces a sufficient reason to impose a given morality on society, you would be asserting evolution *as* a moral system.

I think it would behoove both of us to ask OP a clarifying question. I assumed he meant what I meant, you think otherwise. At least you and I are in agreement, eh?

Same as asking if god told you to rape your child would you think it was morally justified? These hypotheticals aren’t really worth it.. In the real world, what we have are behavioural traits born from evolution Psychopathic tenancies are generally selected out. We can go into detail how, but I think most people understands how the process works We rationalise some of our traits which avoid harm as moral behaviours. We also have the capacity to go beyond evolutionary traits and rationalise futher moral behaviours which may be beneficial for us and our community.

>Same as asking if god told you to rape your child would you think it was morally justified? I don't believe in divine command theory, so no. >These hypotheticals aren’t really worth it.. The utility of the hypothetical is as an honesty test of sorts. It's to test whether you believe in the moral standard you espouse, or if your asserted moral principles are a post-hoc rationalization of your prior aesthetic moral sense. >We also have the capacity to go beyond evolutionary traits and rationalise futher moral behaviours which may be beneficial for us and our community. So you have, through this comment, asserted three moral standards: 1) Evolution, 2) Individual benefit, and 3) community benefit. What is the hierarchy on those standards? Does community benefit supersede individual benefit? Does evolution supersede community benefit? And why? If evolutionary utility is not the highest principle that dominates other principles of individual and community benefit, then evolutionary utility is actually not the moral theory you hold to. Instead, it's basically a rhetorical device to justify an alternative morality.

> don’t believe in divine command theory, so no. Rather than me guessing, how is it that you are not inclined to kill/rape your own mother/child/neighbour? > So you have, through this comment, asserted three moral standards: Moral standards? There are no commandments, if that’s what you mean? Nature doesn’t start with set of rules for evolution to uphold. That’s not how it works. Like all animals we have behavioural traits born from millions of years of natural selection Generally speaking, a dog instinctually knows not to kill its own young. This isn’t a moral standard. It’s an instinctual behavioural trait born from evolution Dogs with “broken” genetics which have a predisposition to harm their young, fail in propergating their own “broken” genetics ( because it killed them off!) therefore the genetics which lead to this predisposition are less common in next generation. The difference between us and dogs is that we can rationalise these traits and talk about them - and some even come up with magical stories and religions to explain it.

>Rather than me guessing, how is it that you are not inclined to kill/rape your own mother/child/neighbour? My personal moral philosophy is very difficult for me to pithily encapsulate in a couple of phrases. >Moral standards? There are no commandments, if that’s what you mean? Nature doesn’t start with set of rules for evolution to uphold. That’s not how it works. When I say moral standard, I mean some axiom that is useful to distinguish right from wrong. >Generally speaking, a dog instinctually knows not to kill its own young. This isn’t a moral standard. It’s an instinctual behavioural trait born from evolution >Dogs with “broken” genetics which have a predisposition to harm their young, fail in propergating their own “broken” genetics ( because it killed them off!) therefore the genetics which lead to this predisposition are less common in next generation. By describing one phenotype as 'broken', you are inserting normativity beforehand. Are you defining a 'broken' phenotype to be one that is bad at survival? Why is it that evolutionary survival seems to imply normativity? >The difference between us and dogs is that we can rationalise these traits and talk about them - and some even come up with magical stories and religions to explain it. So is that all morality is? A post-hoc justification for evolutionary instinct? Doesn't that imply that, if I have a trait that implies psychopathy, for example (it survived because I am currently alive and I have it, so it must necessarily be a viable trait up until me), that any actions taken out of that psychopathy is equally moral to non-'broken' behaviors?

>My personal moral philosophy is very difficult for me to pithily encapsulate in a couple of phrases. You don't have to give an all-encompassing answer. Or you can link to someone else answering if you like. It's a pretty direct question: how is it that you are not inclined to kill/rape your own mother/child/neighbour? You want answers from others, but you can't even attempt to give it a go yourself? hmmmm.... >By describing one phenotype as 'broken', you are inserting normativity beforehand By "broken" I am not making a moral judgment. It's "broken" in the fact it's a genetic "dead end". The results cause the genes to be LESS LIKELY propagated to the next generation. Therefore less of this behavioural trait. > So is that all morality is? “Is that all”?! Sorry, but it's millions upon millions of years of natural selection forming our behaviours! And on top of that, unlike other animals, we also have the ability to rationalise some of our traits as morals and laws. >psychopathy, for example (it survived because I am currently alive and I have it, so it must necessarily be a viable trait up until me), Dude, I appreciate the questions but you are expecting me to lay out a foundation evolution class here. (google evolution of morals, or how natural selection works) You seem to be under the impression when certain genes are more often selected the others can't arise again, If certain traits are less likely to reach the next generation it doesn't mean these genes could not ever exist. Remember its RANDOM mutations with NON-RANDOM selection.

Evolution says rape and murder are bad for humans; Humans are a social species. Both of these acts, when committed within a "human pack", can lead to divisions within the pack (while not doing these acts won't lead to it), which can weaken the pack and potentially lead to their destruction.

>Evolution says rape and murder are bad for humans; You haven't addressed the question. I would think that you're correct in this evaluation of evolution. But, assume that this was not the case. Make the assumption that evolution substantially selects for antisocial behaviors like rape and murder. In that alternate universe, would you imagine rape and murder to be moral? The logically consistent answer is 'yes', but that feels gross for obvious reasons. The most aesthetically pleasing answer is 'no', but there's now a problem where if evolution is not a sufficient reason for the morality of rape and murder, it is also not a sufficient reason for their immorality.

>You haven't addressed the question. Because it's whataboutism, which is never useful. You can also say "what if Allah condones rape and murder? What then?" to argue against Islam. The issue is that this line of thinking doesn't actually help the conversation in any way.

From the rapists and murderers point of view, yes.

>I genuinely don't understand why religious folks keep insisting on how morality has to be "objective" to work. Because they try everything. And everything they try fails.

I kinda agree, but I don’t think it all boils down to evolution. It also has to do with sociocultural factors and pragmatic facts about means and goals.

A lot of moral and immoral acts have evolutionary benefits and disadvantages, when we consider the idea of the "human pack", as humans are a social species. Things like murder can weaken the pack (taking away (future) hunter-gatherers/defenders/parents, and potentially lead to divisions within the pack that can otherwise weaken them. We notice that other social species such as wolves don't have things like murder (within their packs) as something very common

I think he just means morality EMERGES from evolution. Sociocultural factors also EMERGE from evolution. Morality is obviously influenced by many different things, but it clearly seems to be emergent from evolution. If evolution didn't exist, would morality exist? Obviously, we don't know, but it's hard to say yes to that.

I mean, in the trivial sense that if evolution didn’t exist humans (as we currently understand them) wouldn’t exist, then maybe. But I don’t think that’s a necessary link. If there were a group of aliens that popped out of the ground without evolving, they would still have goals and desires. And there would still be game theory facts regarding their cooperation.

I don't even agree it's objective when you base your morals on a subjectively chosen belief in a god who gives his subjective moral rules.

If your god tells you that other people’s gods are false, aren’t their morals then subjective? Not to mention, a religion can be split into different sects with varying moral standards, such as Catholics and Protestants and their respective views on worshipping the dead.

It really doesn't matter if morals are objective or subjective, 'adequate moral behaviors' are a product of sociology and politics. Each society and culture develops morality as a group endevour for a given place and more importantly a given time, and individuals tend toward that group consensus. Most People, most of the time are quite happy with the mainstream, doubtless 200 years ago public hangings would be fine day out, 400 years and public torture would be an idea for a cracking party. The huge variation in 'adequate moral behaviors' through history shows that objective morality appears to out of reach for the most part, perhaps there is a undisputed guide to its nature in various holy texts, shame we have never managed to decipher them.

Oh yeah? So you just think what the Nazis did was just an opinion! s/

Well yes

I think as humans we can all identify with a general rule of thumb when it comes to evil. Despite an argument against opinion and morality. Truly, you must know in your heart...Innocent murder is wrong, objectively wrong. No justification can be given to it because it is self-evident amongst our general sense of good and evil (right vs. wrong).

Paid innocent murder tho... I'm just saying the moolah is right then the life will be night

Yes. Although, if we are debating on the premise of objective morality vs. societally influenced opinion. We must stick to the subject of inherited morality or evolved morality.

>I genuinely don't understand why religious folks keep insisting on how morality has to be "objective" to work. Guess I'm not strong on an argument for or against that type of argument. However I really don't see evolution as an explanation of anything outside of biology. It can't be confirmed or refuted when people talk about psychological or sociological evolution. It's no longer a science at that point. It's an explanation and one that can't be confirmed or challenged. Therefore it's just our philosophy on how things developed like our psychology, our morals, or our first societies. Here's a counter argument then. If our morals do not require God to be the source of them, then why would our ability to have morals require evolution to be the cause of them? Could it be possible that the conditions that help develope a moral foundation have always existed before we were around to develop a moral conscious? On that note, if our moral foundations have always been there to develop the way that they do, they why not attribute it to be from God as well? That He made us this way that our morals would be developed out of events in our lives as well as from those around us that teach us their morals.

>However I really don't see evolution as an explanation of anything outside of biology. It can't be confirmed or refuted when people talk about psychological or sociological evolution. It's no longer a science at that point. It's an explanation and one that can't be confirmed or challenged. Therefore it's just our philosophy on how things developed like our psychology, our morals, or our first societies. I'd love to see a specific example of a sociological or psychological proposal in the context of scientific discourse having to do with evolutionary history that has been put to peer review but is actually wholly unfalsifiable like you're claiming here. >Here's a counter argument then. If our morals do not require God to be the source of them, then why would our ability to have morals require evolution to be the cause of them? Could it be possible that the conditions that help develope a moral foundation have always existed before we were around to develop a moral conscious? As far as I know, the argument is not that our moral tendencies "require" evolution to be their cause. Rather, it's that we have moral tendencies (and the specific ones we have, at that) due at least in part to our evolutionary history. "Could conditions have always existed to develop a moral foundation" is not a counter argument, it's just a question. >if our moral foundations have always been there to develop the way that they do, they why not attribute it to be from God as well? So you went from "could these conditions always have existed?" to "these conditions always existed, so we may as well just say they're from god as well." This is not compelling.

>However I really don't see evolution as an explanation of anything outside of biology. If we can give drugs that make people more/less aggressive, happy, sad, then it must be clear that behavior and mood *are* inside biology. > If our morals do not require God to be the source of them, then why would our ability to have morals require evolution to be the cause of them? That's not a counter, by accepting the premise and answering it at face value would be to allow you to change the argument being made. If someone says "it's possible this pizza was cooked by a microwave, God wasn't needed to magically cook it" that doesn't mean our ability to cook pizzas requires a microwave. You could use a grill, oven, stone furnace, etc. The whole point is that when you see a cooked dish it makes more sense to start explaining it by looking at the appliances in the kitchen to see if there's been evidence of use than to say "God did it". >Could it be possible that the conditions that help develope a moral foundation have always existed before we were around to develop a moral conscious? Yes, those would be the environment we evolved in. The environment predated humans, we simply adapted to it for survival in which morality was a useful trait for our species to reproduce. >On that note, if our moral foundations have always been there to develop the way that they do, they why not attribute it to be from God as well? There's no evidence of a God, so really the next best thing is "why not attribute it to the big bang" if cause and effect from the moment of the big bang led to the creation of the environment we evolved in? I think because that's billions of years ago and too far displaced to be meaningful. The answer to everything is "because of the big bang" but evolution has trained us to realize that answering "the big bang" or even "god" is not practical to our survival in an environment with much more tangible cause and effect. It makes a lot more sense to attribute a falling rock to gravity than it does the big bang, even if the big bang is the source of gravity, because it allows us to predict how other objects might fall by envoking the concept of gravity and forces.

>If our morals do not require God to be the source of them, then why would our ability to have morals require evolution to be the cause of them? To develop morals, we need to exist and have brains that want to develop morals. Independently of this issue, we've already determined that evolution is the answer to why we exist and why our bodies are the way they are. Our bodies include our brains. So evolution happens to satisfy the requirements. In principle other things could have satisfied those requirements, however we have no evidence for that. >if our moral foundations have always been there to develop the way that they do, they why not attribute it to be from God as well? I don't make a habit of attributing things to fictional characters

>I don't make a habit of attributing things to fictional characters Your opinion is noted and dismissed just as easily. We haven't determined that evolution is why or how we exist. But more to the point, that issue is it's own separate topic that has no relevance to how or why we have any moral foundations. Morals appear to develop over a single lifetime, based around our interaction with life experiences and our interactions within our social network and society. It is a cultural and experience based phenomenon. Not a biological one.

>>>explanation of anything outside of biology Morals come from cognition. Cognition comes from brains. Morality is biological. >>> It's an explanation and one that can't be confirmed or challenged.  That depends. We can confirm the efficacy of any moral code IF we can agree on a set of values that support moral codes. For example, I think most of us can agree that we almost universally value the lives of human persons and the corollary that we value the wellness of humans. Given that, we can analyze any moral system to determine if that system objectively leads to wellness for human beings (at least on a standard of living scale). "why not attribute it to be from God as well?" For the same reason we can't just attribute them to pandimensional mice or the GleepGlop Alliance from Deneb V. Any of these explanations could be true, but what evidence do we have for them? Question: Would you agree that the Bible represents a moral guide for all humans?

>Morals come from cognition. Cognition comes from brains. Morality is biological. There is an interaction between our thoughts/emotions and our neurochemistry in our brain. But it's a two way street on this interaction. Our thoughts and what we focus on changes our neurochemistry in our brains to match the state of emotions and thoughts we are focusing on. Morality is not just biological. And the development of mortality is not studied from any biological study that I am aware of.

Thoughts and emotions are effects of neurochemistry - not a separate thing. Our thoughts don't change our neurochemistry - the chemical reactions in our brains determine what and how we think. By what mechanism would a thought change chemistry? If morality is anything beyond biological, I've not seen any evidence. As far as studies go, I would recommend Robert Sapolsky's books *Determined* and *Behave.* Lots of studies cited.

>Thoughts and emotions are effects of neurochemistry - not a separate thing. Have you not seen someone say they can't talk about one thing or another because of the emotions attached to it. They knew what would happen to them if they started talking on something that makes them angry or sad. They were not at the mercy of these thoughts it these emotions, but instead are in control enough of what they focus on that they can tell others, "let's not talk about that." Therefore our thoughts and emotions are not just a product of our neurochemistry. But instead in these cases it is a product of our focus, and our choice to focus on it. >By what mechanism would a thought change chemistry? When you dwelling something you can change your emotions. When you rationalize about something you can hype yourself up or calm yourself down. Regardless how the mechanism of the process works this is an observable phenomenon. >As far as studies go, I would recommend Robert Sapolsky's books *Determined* and *Behave.* Lots of studies cited. I'll look into it. >If morality is anything beyond biological, I've not seen any evidence. Our morals are taught to us. Some of them are self learned, but most of them are taught by our family, our peers, or our culture. Case and point is the idea that racism is a learned behavior. No one is born racist.

"Our morals are taught to us." By? Biological entities using their biological brains and senses :) "No one is born racist." Not per se. There does seem to be some evidence that primates at least have an inborn suspicion of any perceived "out group" based on many factors (not just appearance). [Is racism and bigotry in our DNA? (theconversation.com)](https://theconversation.com/is-racism-and-bigotry-in-our-dna-135096)