Very nice question. My answer is that we dont live in a moral universe. I doubt there is an objective morality given that the universe doesn't offer a moral basis or standard in nature to compare human actions. Animals that occur in nature eat meat as we do. Some insects will enslave other insects. If all animals ate plants and no insects enslaved other insects then immorality would be against the object order of nature. But instead morality is about how things make us feel. What makes us feel bad is bad vice versa. I truly don't believe in objective morality and anyone who makes morality out to be an objective thing is likely a hardcore moralist.

everything subjective is mediated by our biochemistry either by our default setup or our "epigenetics" (environmental influences during our life) — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed, like a stone in a river.

Very nice question. My answer is that we dont live in a moral universe. I doubt there is an objective morality given that the universe doesn't offer a moral basis or standard in nature to compare human actions. Animals that occur in nature eat meat as we do. Some insects will enslave other insects. If all animals ate plants and no insects enslaved other insects then immorality would be against the object order of nature. But instead morality is about how things make us feel. What makes us feel bad is bad vice versa. I truly don't believe in objective morality and anyone who makes morality out to be an objective thing is likely a hardcore moralist. — introbert

I agree wholeheartedly.

Morality is a man-made concept to describe a mechanism that forces man and some warm-blooded creatures to feel bad or good when they act according to or against a set of expected behaviour.

Try to explain that to political leaders, FaceBook moralists or to vegans and permutational nomenclaturalists.

That said, I do believe that humans do need and get benefit as a species from their ability to enjoy morality. I agree with Introbert that human morality does not exist outside of humanity. Trying to apply human morality to nature is unnatural.

I agree with Introbert that human morality does not exist outside of humanity. Trying to apply human morality to nature is unnatural. — god must be atheist

:roll: Genetic fallacy. Also, human nature is separate from "nature"?

Ethics maybe a stumbling block rather than a stepping stone? :chin:

Re: natural law. Whether something is immoral does have a sort of objectivity to nature. Just as putting your hand on a hot stove has immediate disciplinary effect, and has moral implications regarding a persons duty to care for their body, committing unjust and immoral acts that don't have an implicit natural disciplinary corollary, are seemingly corrected eventually as if by force of nature. There is an inherent internal instability in immoral acts for one reason or another. The reason may be they are the result of poor decision making which will eventually lead a fatal wrong decision. Something in the logic of immorality will curse the immoral. The immoral action could also have negative effects which lead to the creation of laws to control the action and these laws simulate natural force and effect. It follows in this line of reasoning that modern contemporary society is an absurd simulacra of natural laws and natural force and effect like economic behaviors that create environmental damage are worshipping artificiality that rewards the processes that create the artificiality. If nature was seen as the objective source of morality and law as I have demonstrated a rudimentary basis for, then it woukd be nature governing nature rather than artificiality governing artificiality.

Genetic fallacy. Also, human nature is separate from "nature"? — 180 Proof

In the common informal English, it is. Man-made structures are not considered natural structures, unless they are freely found in nature, too.

How would you write "not found freely in nature"? If man-made objects are part of nature, then their occurrences are also objects found freely in nature. So then "not found freely in nature" are only things that don't exist.

I appreciate that man is part of nature, and man's creations are part of nature by extension. But the language does make a distinction between man-made and non-man-made, by calling things natural and man-made.

Also, this raises the problem of how to consider man, as a thing in the universe. Man is man-made, (man meaning humans, not just male humans), yet it is also a naturally occurring thing.

==============

If you think you can freely insult my intelligence, then don't be surprised if I insult yours.

Just as putting your hand on a hot stove has immediate disciplinary effect, and has moral implications regarding a persons duty to care for their body, committing unjust and immoral acts that don't have an implicit natural disciplinary corollary — introbert

Yes they do in fact: Over time they erode the quality-of-life of those who would not do such acts -- or would slip, doing such only occasionally and temporarily. (The latter are folks of good character who, being fallible, sometimes goof up, make stupid mistakes ...and thus become bad characters for the moment.)
BTW, I like your metaphor: how a bad burn often serves to teach some a lesson; only, though, if they are willing and able to learn. I would like to quote you [in a serious academic paper] but do not know your real name, just your nickname here. Phone me, and we will discuss this further. I live in Skokie. Okay?

Also, human nature is separate from "nature"? — 180 Proof

Man-made structures ... — god must be atheist

So you cannot differentiate Man from "man-made structures"? :roll:

Btw, cite a single case of a "man-made structure" that is separate from nature – unconstrained by laws of nature.

If you think you can freely insult my intelligence, then don't be surprised if I insult yours.

:sweat:

In the common informal English, it is. Man-made structures are not considered natural structures, unless they are freely found in nature, too. — god must be atheist

Btw, cite a single case of a "man-made structure" that is separate from nature – unconstrained by laws of nature. — 180 Proof

Why should I?

Instead, please find me:
- a pyramid, in the fashion of burial place of pharaohs, complete with sarcophagi and mummies and mummified remains of food items in proper containers, freely found in nature formed by other than man;
- a nuclear power station, that generates electricity, with all its intricacies in its design, freely found in nature other than created by man;
- a plastic shopping bag, with a company logo printed on its two sides, freely found in nature, that has not been a manufactured product of man.

please find me:
- a pyramid, in the fashion of burial place of pharaohs, complete with sarcophagi and mummies and mummified remains of food items in proper containers, freely found in nature formed by other than man;
- a nuclear power station, that generates electricity, with all its intricacies in its design, freely found in nature other than created by man; — god must be atheist

Please find me a natural object that is not throughly the product of conventional schemes of language that incorporate such cultural features as how we understand the use of our measuring devices. As our linguistic, material and technological interactive engagements with our world change, so does the meaning of the ‘nature’ we observe.

wtf :sweat:

wtf :sweat: — 180 Proof

I am sorry, but that's not a good answer.

Please find me a natural object that is not throughly the product of conventional schemes of language that incorporate such cultural features as how we understand the use of our measuring devices. As our linguistic, material and technological interactive engagements with our world change, so does the meaning of the ‘nature’ we observe — Joshs

I fail to see why I should find you such a natural object. Go find it yourself. You probably put it under the tool box in the shed, like the last time you were so desperately looking for it. :-)

Better than your non-answer ...

Better than your non-answer ... — 180 Proof

Please don't blame me for your not seeing the answer in what you call non-answer.

You expressed your demand of showing you separateness between natural and man-made this way:

Btw, cite a single case of a "man-made structure" that is separate from nature — 180 Proof

You added that these structures must be independent from natural laws; but your understanding of nature is different from my understanding of it, and you are begging me to show you what I understand as nature.

Basically how I see your claim (1) is that the set of nature fully encompasses humans and creations of humans as its proper subset. Please correct me if my view of your view is not correct.

What I am saying is that that is not true, IFF you take the common informal meaning of nature vs human-made, because there are human-made objects that are not found made by other than humans.

This is an important difference. And I supplied the parameter under which I claim that nature is separate from human-made.

If you agree with the fact that man has only made objects that are found in replicates made by non-humans, then I disagree with you. You actually did not claim that, but it follows from your claim (1), under the parameters I have specified for my claim.

Now, your wording:

Btw, cite a single case of a "man-made structure" that is separate from nature — 180 Proof

There is a danger of equivocation here, so I spell out the differences, in order to avoid further misunderstandings:

You gave your parameters, as "separate" must mean not following natural laws.

But my parameters not as stated, but implied implicitly that "separate" is something that is unlike. Different. Separate in appearance, structure, and component parts.

This has not been spelled out in my initial claim, but many things have not been spelled out by your initial claim, either.

However, in my question my definition, if you like, of separateness has been insinuated. Your laughing at it is meaningless and fully dismissed as anything of merit, substance or brains.

Your prior statement below I called into question as incoherent because your statement implies that a practice we humans use to regulate expressions of human nature, which is sapient constituent of more-than-just-human-nature aka "Nature", does not belong to (or in) "Nature".

Trying to apply human morality to nature is unnatural. — god must be atheist

Since humans are natural beings and therefore inseparable from nature, applying human morality to ourselves is indistinguishable from applying human morality to nature, and therefore not "unnatural". Maybe, in most instances, to do so is impractical, missplaced, anthropomorphizing, etc; not, however, "unnatural".

Besides, we cannot help but "apply human morality to nature" insofar as we judge our environments and ecosystems as not worthy of our moral concern, thereby denying any moral culpability for us destroying them and their natural inhabitants with our thermal & chemical pollution, overdevelopment, non-renewable resource extraction, etc.

We (humans) do stand out from the rest of nature! We're not satisfied with how nature works (dukkha) and much of our literature and religions, beginning with the epic of Gilgamesh, is but a long list of complaints against mother nature and how she runs the place. Perhaps if animals could think/speak, they'd add a few of their own thoughts in the suggestion box of reality.

To be moral is just to treat moral agents justly. Our concept of justice is largely built in and intuitive. What has always been at issue is who is worthy of the status of moral agent. The reason that outrages like slavery can exist is the wholesale denial of moral agent status to groups. This is how moral outrages always happen.

So the question is, who is worthy of being moral agents? Is there an objective criterion? I think so, it can only be consciousness. To be a moral agent is to be conscious. Why? To be conscious is to feel, to have goals and interests, to have a sense of self, to be in the most important respect similar to all other moral agents, that is, all other conscious beings. (Consciousness is not an absolute, if a being is minimally conscious, it is minimally a moral agent.)

Therefore, to enslave people or animals is objectively immoral, as this is treating moral agents, that is , conscious beings, unjustly.

:up:

:death: :flower:
Read Laozi & Zhuangzi.
Read Epicurus-Lucretius & Seneca-Epictetus.
Read Spinoza & Nietzsche.
Read P. Foot & M. Nussbaum.
Like waves in the ocean, humans belong to nature – for better and worse. Yeah, we "stand out" but not so much that we are separate from or rise above nature anymore than ocean waves are separate from or rise above the ocean.

This is why I personally believe that people should be judged by the standards of their times and not by the standards of other times. This is why, for instance, someone such as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin is so repulsive; specifically, such people's behavior was extremely vile and atrocious even by the standards of their own times. But this is different from, say, criticizing JFK for opposing same-sex marriage, when very likely 90+% of the US population felt the same way that he himself did.

In addition to future generations possibly viewing us as savages for eating meat, future generations could possibly view us as savages for aborting fetuses (if public opinion will eventually take a sharply anti-abortion turn) or, alternatively, for refusing to give unwilling male parents a unilateral opt-out from paying child support. Right now, the only two guaranteed choices that males have in regards to this are abstaining from penis-in-vagina sex with all fertile and potentially fertile cisgender females or literally getting surgically castrated, since even a bilateral epididymectomy combined with a radical scrotal vasectomy can theoretically fail even after three successful/negative semen analyses. Future generations could view the lack of genuine male options in regards to this as being completely barbaric! Seriously.

In addition to future generations possibly viewing us as savages for eating meat, future generations could possibly view us as savages for aborting fetuses (if public opinion will eventually take a sharply anti-abortion turn) or, alternatively, for refusing to give unwilling male parents a unilateral opt-out from paying child support. — Xanatos

Something that perks my curiosity, is the possibility (or is it a certainty?) that future generations may view us as savages for something that we cannot currently comprehend as immoral in today's society.

But that is a difficult nut to crack, as how can I have any hope of comprehending something that cannot currently be comprehended given my position in time and society?

Can one reach a place in which one can think without being constrained by the zeitgeist?

Yep, very possibly. Denying child sex dolls and child sex robots to minor-attracted people, for instance. Some or even many people appear to be cool with doing this, but this might become an unpopular position in the future if future people will come to believe that *everyone* who is capable of doing this should be able to express their sexuality in an exclusively harm-free manner.

And of course, polyamorous relationships could get more acceptance and recognition in the future. And maybe the public will become more tolerant of an atheist President in the future. Who knows, right?