Is there some tiny trace of objective morality that has emanated throughout all cultures in all time periods? — Robot Brain
Is there some universal source? Yes -- human beings. People living in groups face common problems, which is why moral systems will require similar things. — Bitter Crank
I'd like to make sure we include biology in the mix. Human beings evolved as social animals. — T Clark
I believe a lot of our social behavior, including morality, is built in, human nature. — T Clark
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.
In fact, the very idea of an “ought” is foreign to evolutionary theory. It makes no sense for a biologist to say that some particular animal should be more cooperative, much less to claim that an entire species ought to aim for some degree of altruism. If we decide that we should neither “dissolve society” through extreme selfishness, as Wilson puts it, nor become “angelic robots” like ants, we are making an ethical judgment, not a biological one. Likewise, from a biological perspective it has no significance to claim that I should be more generous than I usually am, or that a tyrant ought to be deposed and tried. In short, a purely evolutionary ethics makes ethical discourse meaningless.
Furthermore, evolutionary biology doesn't necessarily have much to say about existential questions. Again, from the viewpoint of evo-bio, we're simply another species. The fact that we can question the nature of meaning, pursue science and philosophy, and many other things, is to all intents invisible to that perspective. Yet nevertheless, many people persist in believing that they are 'explained' by it. — Wayfarer
Doesn’t add up to a lot, though, in respect of the question at hand. — Wayfarer
I'm curious about other's thoughts on a timeless or objective moral code. Perhaps you disagree with my existence postulate and think there are alternatives. — Robot Brain
What do you think that ‘something’ might be, though? Is it a product of the instinct to survive? Is it social in origin? — Wayfarer
I just know that I like people. I like being around them. — T Clark
Sure, I absolutely respect that, and from everything you write, you seem to be a good person to be around! But the thread is asking a pretty specific question about ethical theory. It seems to me almost every response has been along the lines of - 'it's up to us', which also stands to reason, in the present social context. (Although at this point I'm beginning to think the OP is a drive-by.) — Wayfarer
Although at this point I'm beginning to think the OP is a drive-by. — Wayfarer
I believe a lot of our social behavior, including morality, is built in, human nature. — T Clark
The problem I have with this (and mine is an unpopular view), is that it invariably reduces morality to survival. After all, the only criterion for success in biological theory is reproductive fitness. — Wayfarer
So - it seems to me that what is needed to anchor morality is an objective good, a summum bonum. That is generally translated as the 'highest good' which naturally sounds religious — Wayfarer
I find myself leaning towards morality derived from evolutionary biology as my example of pro-existence morality may suggest. As T Clark said, morality, or in my opinion at least the first principal of morality, could be built into us as a species. Could it not be plausible that human morality is framed around the biological objective of reproductive fitness? — Robot Brain
As for a "summum bonum," since the overall objective in evolutionary biology seems to be fairly straightforward, could the objective good simply consist of reproductive fitness? — Robot Brain
I recall a conversation from years back, where I ventured that there was an objective moral order, which I was then told was an absurd thing to believe. — Wayfarer
I'm certainly not sold on the biological fitness = morality hypothesis I mention above. — Robot Brain
As for a "summum bonum," since the overall objective in evolutionary biology seems to be fairly straightforward, could the objective good simply consist of reproductive fitness? — Robot Brain
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.