Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

Actually, they do. Go mess with their husband or wife, or their children, and see what happens. They'll have an opinion about whether what you've done is right or wrong, for sure.

Everyone can have opinions which doesn't mean that they also have a sense of morality. Pretty bad example.
Of course it's perfectly common and accepted knowledge in modern psychology that some people lack a conscience, morality, right and wrong, but please continue to insist on the opposite.

That's not at all obvious. Lions kill other dominant lions, so that they can take over the pride and the "lion's share" of the resources. They kill the cubs of the former lion, and put all the females in estrus that way. Why would humans operate any differently? Kill the dominant member of the tribe, become the tribal chief, and get all the babes...

Evolutionary explanations are always shady, at best, but they become really apocryphal when it comes to morality.

You haven't noticed that lions and humans are two very different species?

[Harbal]

Men worship many gods, it's true. And even those who refuse the thought of any god end up offering their tributes to something less worthy...such as themselves. So the "worship" of something is inevitable, because we all find we have to choose some orientation point for our life projects. Around that, all our activities end up constellating. And perhaps the most foolish god is "myself," since I cannot possibly not know that I am a contingent and temporal being, doomed to die soon. So I'm worshipping a perishing ghost, then, organizing my whole life around a piece of dust.

But one can worship something that is objectively real, or one can worship things that are illusory. If morality is objective, it could only be grounded in the only Supreme Being there actually is. And if there were none, then morality would indeed be nothing but a popular delusion.

That's all very well IC, but I simply couldn't bring myself to lower my moral standands just to comply with the demands of someone else's god.

Don't, then. Raise them to correspond to what the Supreme Being, your Creator, expects of you. That's all anyone could ask.

That's exactly what I am doing, although I do acknowledge that, as a self made man, I could have done a better job.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, they do. Go mess with their husband or wife, or their children, and see what happens. They'll have an opinion about whether what you've done is right or wrong, for sure.

Everyone can have opinions which doesn't mean that they also have a sense of morality.

It's more than a mere "opinion," of course; it's a moral opinion, meaning that they have a view of what the moral status of your action is. They feel they know that you have insufficient justification, morally speaking, for what you just did.

Of course it's perfectly common and accepted knowledge in modern psychology that some people lack a conscience, morality, right and wrong,

Yet you call it "lack." Which means that you know that normal people have it, and the people who do not are called "psychopaths," and are abnormal.

That's not at all obvious. Lions kill other dominant lions, so that they can take over the pride and the "lion's share" of the resources. They kill the cubs of the former lion, and put all the females in estrus that way. Why would humans operate any differently? Kill the dominant member of the tribe, become the tribal chief, and get all the babes...

Evolutionary explanations are always shady, at best, but they become really apocryphal when it comes to morality.

You haven't noticed that lions and humans are two very different species?

Why does it matter? It works for chimps, too, and wolves, and bighorn sheep, and for a whole variety of mammals. In fact, the only species for whom survival-of-the-fittest is not posited by evolutionary theorists, is mankind. Why would they make that one exception, since they tell us they think we're just animals, too?

[Immanuel Can]

a self made man

Never was a metaphor so abused!

One thing we all know about ourselves is that we didn't literally "make" ourselves. We popped out of somebody else, totally unexpected to us.

[Atla]

Actually, they do. Go mess with their husband or wife, or their children, and see what happens. They'll have an opinion about whether what you've done is right or wrong, for sure.

Everyone can have opinions which doesn't mean that they also have a sense of morality.

It's more than a mere "opinion," of course; it's a moral opinion, meaning that they have a view of what the moral status of your action is. They feel they know that you have insufficient justification, morally speaking, for what you just did.

Of course it's perfectly common and accepted knowledge in modern psychology that some people lack a conscience, morality, right and wrong,

Yet you call it "lack." Which means that you know that normal people have it, and the people who do not are called "psychopaths," and are abnormal.

That's not at all obvious. Lions kill other dominant lions, so that they can take over the pride and the "lion's share" of the resources. They kill the cubs of the former lion, and put all the females in estrus that way. Why would humans operate any differently? Kill the dominant member of the tribe, become the tribal chief, and get all the babes...

Evolutionary explanations are always shady, at best, but they become really apocryphal when it comes to morality.

You haven't noticed that lions and humans are two very different species?

Why does it matter? It works for chimps, too, and wolves, and bighorn sheep, and for a whole variety of mammals. In fact, the only species for whom survival-of-the-fittest is not posited by evolutionary theorists, is mankind. Why would they make that one exception, since they tell us they think we're just animals, too?

Calling an opinion a moral opinion doesn't make it based on the moral sense if one doesn't have one. A lot more people than just psychopaths don't have a moral sense. Again, humans and lions are very different species. Many species don't kill their own members. Humans aren't treated as an exception. Survival of the fittest usually also means survival of the tribe, species.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why does it matter? It works for chimps, too, and wolves, and bighorn sheep, and for a whole variety of mammals. In fact, the only species for whom survival-of-the-fittest is not posited by evolutionary theorists, is mankind. Why would they make that one exception, since they tell us they think we're just animals, too?

You are very ignorant with reference to the above.

While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading.
For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important.
Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness.
In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

A mammal (from Latin mamma 'breast')[1] is a vertebrate animal of the class Mammalia (/məˈmeɪli.ə/). Mammals are characterized by the presence of milk-producing mammary glands for feeding their young, a neocortex region of the brain, fur or hair, and three middle ear bones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

While human beings can be classified within the above two categories there a vast difference humans beings and others in terms of brain size, number of neurons and the complexity of the brain organization that made human being unique from all other animals and mammals.'

Example:

• Language and Communication: Humans have highly developed language abilities, allowing for complex communication through spoken and written words. While other animals may have their own forms of communication, human language is unique in its complexity and ability to convey abstract concepts.
  Symbolic Thinking and Abstract Reasoning: Humans have the capacity for symbolic thinking, enabling the use of symbols and abstract concepts to represent and manipulate information. This ability is fundamental to various cognitive processes such as mathematics, art, and conceptual reasoning.
  Metacognition: Humans have the ability to reflect on their own thoughts and think about thinking, known as metacognition. This includes self-awareness, introspection, and the ability to monitor and regulate one's own cognitive processes.
  Future Planning and Mental Time Travel: Humans have the capacity to mentally project themselves into the future, plan ahead, and anticipate consequences. This ability for mental time travel enables us to consider future scenarios and make decisions based on long-term goals.
  Theory of Mind: Theory of mind refers to the ability to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that may differ from one's own. Humans have a well-developed theory of mind, allowing us to attribute mental states to others and infer their thoughts and perspectives.
  Executive Functions: Humans possess advanced executive functions, including the ability to inhibit impulses, plan and organize behavior, set goals, and adapt to changing circumstances. These functions play a crucial role in decision-making, problem-solving, and self-control.
  
  Moral Sense: The moral sense refers first and foremost to our predisposition to evaluate some actions as virtuous, or morally good, and others as evil, or morally bad.

The moral sense or potential is programmed in all humans whilst inactive in the majority and active in a minority of humans, but there is an increasing trend in the unfolding of the moral sense in humans since 10,000 years ago.

Note the trend in the reduction and legal prohibition of Chattel Slavery when slavery is condoned in Islam and not condemned in Christianity.

• In chattel slavery, the slave is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner. In economics, the term de facto slavery describes the conditions of unfree labour and forced labour that most slaves endure.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

There are other forms of slavery, but most of them are prohibited by laws as compared to the past where there are no laws and its a free-for-all.

There is the trend in a comparable reduction [relative to population size] in violence;

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1]
The book uses data simply documenting declining violence across time and geography. This paints a picture of massive declines in the violence of all forms, from war, to improved treatment of children.

The Discovery of Mirror Neurons:
Empathy is a critical elements of morality.
It is claimed certain aspects [not absolutely] mirror neurons contribute the empathy in humans.
Recently, researchers has traced certain moral activities to their corresponding neural correlates.

Because moral elements are traceable to physical neuron and the neural correlates [biological], they are objective facts when conditioned upon a human-based moral FSK.
Therefore human based morality is objective.

Moral opinions of rightness or wrongness which are obviously subjective do not belong to morality-proper which is objective as conditioned upon empirical facts.

Meanwhile I do agree theistic morality is optimally to the current evolutionary phase, but it cannot be objective because the theistic FSK [Framework and System] based on faith [not proofs] cannot be objective at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Calling an opinion a moral opinion doesn't make it based on the moral sense if one doesn't have one. A lot more people than just psychopaths don't have a moral sense. Again, humans and lions are very different species. Many species don't kill their own members. Humans aren't treated as an exception. Survival of the fittest usually also means survival of the tribe, species.

Actually, not having a moral sense is pretty much definitional of psychopathy. That’s what it means.

If humans are not an exception, then the problem applies. There is no reason why one person, especially a person who “doesn’t have a moral sense” should prioritize the survival of a tribe over his own survival, or even his own immediate advantage. Why should the “more fit” give up his survival advantages for one, or a collection of, the “less fit”? What happens as a result will vindicate the choice: the weak will die, the strong will survive, and evolution will continue…

So none of that explains why, if his tribe thinks he shouldn’t kill somebody or get all the women, that he shouldn’t do it, if he is confident he’ll survive the choice…which, if he’s strong or cunning, he will.

Upshot: appeal to evolutionism explains absolutely nothing about morality. Even if we supposed it said something about how it came about, it would be what’s called “genetic fallacy” to suppose that made what had come about morally “legitimate.” All it really would do is describe how a phenomenon, which may or may not be one we wish to perpetuate, had formed in the first place. It would not prove we had even a lick of duty to care about its continuance.

[Atla]

Calling an opinion a moral opinion doesn't make it based on the moral sense if one doesn't have one. A lot more people than just psychopaths don't have a moral sense. Again, humans and lions are very different species. Many species don't kill their own members. Humans aren't treated as an exception. Survival of the fittest usually also means survival of the tribe, species.

Actually, not having a moral sense is pretty much definitional of psychopathy. That’s what it means.

If humans are not an exception, then the problem applies. There is no reason why one person, especially a person who “doesn’t have a moral sense” should prioritize the survival of a tribe over his own survival, or even his own immediate advantage. Why should the “more fit” give up his survival advantages for one, or a collection of, the “less fit”? What happens as a result will vindicate the choice: the weak will die, the strong will survive, and evolution will continue…

So none of that explains why, if his tribe thinks he shouldn’t kill somebody or get all the women, that he shouldn’t do it, if he is confident he’ll survive the choice…which, if he’s strong or cunning, he will.

Upshot: appeal to evolutionism explains absolutely nothing about morality. Even if we supposed it said something about how it came about, it would be what’s called “genetic fallacy” to suppose that made what had come about morally “legitimate.” All it really would do is describe how a phenomenon, which may or may not be one we wish to perpetuate, had formed in the first place. It would not prove we had even a lick of duty to care about its continuance.

No it's not definitional psychopathy, I think that was 100 years ago. No that's not what it means, psychopathy also typically means some other things, having no moral sense is part of the bundle. Then today there are also the sociopath, NPD, BPD etc.

What problem applies? That there is no absolute morality? That's the whole point of subjective morality.

Or that after killing all the other males and getting all the women, the tribe remains undefended by males and probably gets killed off, so survival ends? No problem there either. Humans live in groups but haven't evolved as apex predators of the animal kingdom, that could pull something like this off.

[Immanuel Can]

Calling an opinion a moral opinion doesn't make it based on the moral sense if one doesn't have one. A lot more people than just psychopaths don't have a moral sense. Again, humans and lions are very different species. Many species don't kill their own members. Humans aren't treated as an exception. Survival of the fittest usually also means survival of the tribe, species.

Actually, not having a moral sense is pretty much definitional of psychopathy. That’s what it means.

If humans are not an exception, then the problem applies. There is no reason why one person, especially a person who “doesn’t have a moral sense” should prioritize the survival of a tribe over his own survival, or even his own immediate advantage. Why should the “more fit” give up his survival advantages for one, or a collection of, the “less fit”? What happens as a result will vindicate the choice: the weak will die, the strong will survive, and evolution will continue…

So none of that explains why, if his tribe thinks he shouldn’t kill somebody or get all the women, that he shouldn’t do it, if he is confident he’ll survive the choice…which, if he’s strong or cunning, he will.

Upshot: appeal to evolutionism explains absolutely nothing about morality. Even if we supposed it said something about how it came about, it would be what’s called “genetic fallacy” to suppose that made what had come about morally “legitimate.” All it really would do is describe how a phenomenon, which may or may not be one we wish to perpetuate, had formed in the first place. It would not prove we had even a lick of duty to care about its continuance.

No it's not definitional psychopathy, I think that was 100 years ago. No that's not what it means, psychopathy also typically means some other things, having no moral sense is part of the bundle. Then today there are also the sociopath, NPD, BPD etc.

What problem applies? That there is no absolute morality? That's the whole point of subjective morality.

Or that after killing all the other males and getting all the women, the tribe remains undefended by males and probably gets killed off, so survival ends? No problem there either. Humans live in groups but haven't evolved as apex predators of the animal kingdom, that could pull something like this off.

Survival doesn't "end" for the individual, who now has all the goods and all the women. He makes his own tribe, if he wants, or bullies the rest into submission. That all works for him, and works in exactly the way it works for the strongest male lion or wolf.

But even if you were right, and the tribe died...so what? Evolution is not a conscious entity or demigod. It has no opinion about what species should survive and which die out. Extinction is part of the evolutionary game -- some species just don't make it...they become fossils. A tribe dies...so have many tribes. They didn't have what it takes to survive. But there was nothing moral or immoral about the process...stuff happens, and that's all.

So there's no moral content implied by evolution. Survival itself isn't a moral imperative...it's merely a contingent fact, or not. Evolution's just another "is" claim without an "ought" implication.

[Immanuel Can]

It's interesting...I haven't heard from Peter Holmes, who was very voluble up to the present moment. And I haven't heard from anybody else what syllogism they would replace the "boo" syllogism with.

Does that mean nobody has an answer? Is it impossible to render a moral syllogism in subjectivist terms, and make it adequate at all? Are people afraid to try? What gives?

[Atla]

Actually, not having a moral sense is pretty much definitional of psychopathy. That’s what it means.

If humans are not an exception, then the problem applies. There is no reason why one person, especially a person who “doesn’t have a moral sense” should prioritize the survival of a tribe over his own survival, or even his own immediate advantage. Why should the “more fit” give up his survival advantages for one, or a collection of, the “less fit”? What happens as a result will vindicate the choice: the weak will die, the strong will survive, and evolution will continue…

So none of that explains why, if his tribe thinks he shouldn’t kill somebody or get all the women, that he shouldn’t do it, if he is confident he’ll survive the choice…which, if he’s strong or cunning, he will.

Upshot: appeal to evolutionism explains absolutely nothing about morality. Even if we supposed it said something about how it came about, it would be what’s called “genetic fallacy” to suppose that made what had come about morally “legitimate.” All it really would do is describe how a phenomenon, which may or may not be one we wish to perpetuate, had formed in the first place. It would not prove we had even a lick of duty to care about its continuance.

No it's not definitional psychopathy, I think that was 100 years ago. No that's not what it means, psychopathy also typically means some other things, having no moral sense is part of the bundle. Then today there are also the sociopath, NPD, BPD etc.

What problem applies? That there is no absolute morality? That's the whole point of subjective morality.

Or that after killing all the other males and getting all the women, the tribe remains undefended by males and probably gets killed off, so survival ends? No problem there either. Humans live in groups but haven't evolved as apex predators of the animal kingdom, that could pull something like this off.

Survival doesn't "end" for the individual, who now has all the goods and all the women. He makes his own tribe, if he wants, or bullies the rest into submission. That all works for him, and works in exactly the way it works for the strongest male lion or wolf.

But even if you were right, and the tribe died...so what? Evolution is not a conscious entity or demigod. It has no opinion about what species should survive and which die out. Extinction is part of the evolutionary game -- some species just don't make it...they become fossils. A tribe dies...so have many tribes. They didn't have what it takes to survive. But there was nothing moral or immoral about the process...stuff happens, and that's all.

So there's no moral content implied by evolution. Survival itself isn't a moral imperative...it's merely a contingent fact, or not. Evolution's just another "is" claim without an "ought" implication.

Our distant ancestors weren't very good at hand-to-hand combat against lions and wolves and rhinos etc. And if the tribes keep dying, eventually the species dies, so humans evolved the tribal morality to increase the survival and well-being of the tribe. Which is, again, probably the origin of today's human morality obviously.

The whole point is that survival itself isn't a moral imperative either, hence there's no reason to believe in objective morality.

[Harbal]

Calling an opinion a moral opinion doesn't make it based on the moral sense if one doesn't have one. A lot more people than just psychopaths don't have a moral sense. Again, humans and lions are very different species. Many species don't kill their own members. Humans aren't treated as an exception. Survival of the fittest usually also means survival of the tribe, species.

Actually, not having a moral sense is pretty much definitional of psychopathy. That’s what it means.

If humans are not an exception, then the problem applies. There is no reason why one person, especially a person who “doesn’t have a moral sense” should prioritize the survival of a tribe over his own survival, or even his own immediate advantage. Why should the “more fit” give up his survival advantages for one, or a collection of, the “less fit”? What happens as a result will vindicate the choice: the weak will die, the strong will survive, and evolution will continue…

So none of that explains why, if his tribe thinks he shouldn’t kill somebody or get all the women, that he shouldn’t do it, if he is confident he’ll survive the choice…which, if he’s strong or cunning, he will.

Upshot: appeal to evolutionism explains absolutely nothing about morality. Even if we supposed it said something about how it came about, it would be what’s called “genetic fallacy” to suppose that made what had come about morally “legitimate.” All it really would do is describe how a phenomenon, which may or may not be one we wish to perpetuate, had formed in the first place. It would not prove we had even a lick of duty to care about its continuance.

The fact is, most people have a sense of morality, although the nature of their moral values may vary between different cultures. I'm sure that when we exercise our moral judgement, and act upon it, we all experience the same emotional and psychological effect, regardless of where our moral sensibilities come from. Whether we have just absorbed them from our social environment, or had them instilled in us through our religion, doesn't make any difference, the process is just the same.

[Harbal]

It's interesting...I haven't heard from Peter Holmes, who was very voluble up to the present moment.

My guess is that the contract VA took out on him has been executed.

[Immanuel Can]

Our distant ancestors weren't very good at hand-to-hand combat against lions and wolves and rhinos etc. And if the tribes keep dying, eventually the species dies, so humans evolved the tribal morality to increase the survival and well-being of the tribe. Which is, again, probably the origin of today's human morality obviously.

Not at all obvious. What serves the fittest is not letting himself die for the tribe, to which he owes (morally: "oughts") nothing anyway, but making sure he gets ahead...which is what evolution "wants" or causes to happen anyway.

The whole point is that survival itself isn't a moral imperative either, hence there's no reason to believe in objective morality.

That's assumptive, of course...not proven.

You're right that survival isn't a moral imperative, and nothing else is, either...unless God objectively has ordered it so. But the question begged is, "Does God exist?"

[Immanuel Can]

Calling an opinion a moral opinion doesn't make it based on the moral sense if one doesn't have one. A lot more people than just psychopaths don't have a moral sense. Again, humans and lions are very different species. Many species don't kill their own members. Humans aren't treated as an exception. Survival of the fittest usually also means survival of the tribe, species.

Actually, not having a moral sense is pretty much definitional of psychopathy. That’s what it means.

If humans are not an exception, then the problem applies. There is no reason why one person, especially a person who “doesn’t have a moral sense” should prioritize the survival of a tribe over his own survival, or even his own immediate advantage. Why should the “more fit” give up his survival advantages for one, or a collection of, the “less fit”? What happens as a result will vindicate the choice: the weak will die, the strong will survive, and evolution will continue…

So none of that explains why, if his tribe thinks he shouldn’t kill somebody or get all the women, that he shouldn’t do it, if he is confident he’ll survive the choice…which, if he’s strong or cunning, he will.

Upshot: appeal to evolutionism explains absolutely nothing about morality. Even if we supposed it said something about how it came about, it would be what’s called “genetic fallacy” to suppose that made what had come about morally “legitimate.” All it really would do is describe how a phenomenon, which may or may not be one we wish to perpetuate, had formed in the first place. It would not prove we had even a lick of duty to care about its continuance.

The fact is, most people have a sense of morality, although the nature of their moral values may vary between different cultures.

Right. But as you say, it's so different that it's often what sociologists call "incommensurable," meaning that we can actually believe opposite things are moral, depending on which society we're in. In Somalia, it is considered moral to hold young girls down and forcibly cut their private parts to enhance their "purity" and "marriageablity"; in the West, that's called "child abuse" and "mutilation." That's incommensurable.

I'm sure that when we exercise our moral judgement, and act upon it, we all experience the same emotional and psychological effect, regardless of where our moral sensibilities come from.

That's plausible. But it's also trivial. That we have a particular "feeling" doesn't mean that "feeling" is right, or even that it corresponds to reality. When we were children, we "felt" that a bad man was hiding under the bed at night, and the "feeling" was perhaps powerful to us. But it was also untrue...we hope.

My point is only that having a "feeling" doesn't make something moral. It doesn't even make it necessarily realistic.