Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[Age]

I am a moral absolutist, who believes that objective moral truths exist. However, I am also a moral skeptic in that I don't know what are the absolute moral truths. I simply have a moral code which seems highly reasonable, without knowing with certainty that they are true. I am open to change, but meanwhile, I assume they are true until proven false.

Until you write 'them' down, here, 'we' can not prove 'them' to be either False, nor True, obviously.

[MikeNovack]

Morality is only objective when created as a biological extension, a biological expression of the nature of humanity, which is used to reflect on the societies of individuals.

The problem is, Popeye, even though one biology, many cultures. Nor is that just humans. Or even just primates.

For example, odd as this might seem, there is even a FISHING culture of wolves.

Bio;logy would set limits on what is possible, but inside those limits, freedom to differ. So not assured of a SINGLE morality biologically determined for a species.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is only objective when created as a biological extension, a biological expression of the nature of humanity, which is used to reflect on the societies of individuals.

The problem is, Popeye, even though one biology, many cultures. Nor is that just humans. Or even just primates.

For example, odd as this might seem, there is even a FISHING culture of wolves.

Bio;logy would set limits on what is possible, but inside those limits, freedom to differ. So not assured of a SINGLE morality biologically determined for a species.

And an additional problem: an instinct isn't enough to constitute a morality.

For example, it might be the case that some wolves fish. But does that imply wolves "ought to" fish? As David Hume pointed out, it certainly doesn't. It doesn't even mean that a wolf from the "fishing culture of wolves" is obligated in any moral way to fish. He may switch to eating deer or carrion without it implicating a "moral" fault at all. Or if he fishes, it doesn't mean he's being a morally better wolf than those who don't fish.

[accelafine]

Morality is only objective when created as a biological extension, a biological expression of the nature of humanity, which is used to reflect on the societies of individuals.

The problem is, Popeye, even though one biology, many cultures. Nor is that just humans. Or even just primates.

For example, odd as this might seem, there is even a FISHING culture of wolves.

Bio;logy would set limits on what is possible, but inside those limits, freedom to differ. So not assured of a SINGLE morality biologically determined for a species.

He's trying to use biology to support his ridiculous wannabe-Marxist ideology. He doesn't remotely understand Marxism.

[popeye1945]

Morality is only objective when created as a biological extension, a biological expression of the nature of humanity, which is used to reflect on the societies of individuals.

The problem is, Popeye, even though one biology, many cultures. Nor is that just humans. Or even just primates.

For example, odd as this might seem, there is even a FISHING culture of wolves.

Bio;logy would set limits on what is possible, but inside those limits, freedom to differ. So not assured of a SINGLE morality biologically determined for a species.

Hi Mike,
I was assuming that we were talking about human morality, though human morality that included the humane treatment of animals.
Good point, there is a danger in moving ever closer to sameness, which is what you are suggesting, even in independent cultural morality, it takes a hero figure to risk innovations, bringing the boon of gold in the form of change. That would remain the same with a mono morality particular to the species, and progress, innovation, and change would have the same risks as with the mono morality.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is only objective when created as a biological extension, a biological expression of the nature of humanity, which is used to reflect on the societies of individuals.

The problem is, Popeye, even though one biology, many cultures. Nor is that just humans. Or even just primates.

For example, odd as this might seem, there is even a FISHING culture of wolves.

Bio;logy would set limits on what is possible, but inside those limits, freedom to differ. So not assured of a SINGLE morality biologically determined for a species.

He's trying to use biology to support his ridiculous wannabe-Marxist ideology. He doesn't remotely understand Marxism.

It's amazing, isn't it? Marx has been proved wrong by history, over and over again...and not just a little wrong, but disastrously wrong in every single case...and they still want Marxism.

[accelafine]

The problem is, Popeye, even though one biology, many cultures. Nor is that just humans. Or even just primates.

For example, odd as this might seem, there is even a FISHING culture of wolves.

Bio;logy would set limits on what is possible, but inside those limits, freedom to differ. So not assured of a SINGLE morality biologically determined for a species.

He's trying to use biology to support his ridiculous wannabe-Marxist ideology. He doesn't remotely understand Marxism.

It's amazing, isn't it? Marx has been proved wrong by history, over and over again...and not just a little wrong, but disastrously wrong in every single case...and they still want Marxism.

That's not what I said.

[popeye1945]

Morality is only objective when created as a biological extension, a biological expression of the nature of humanity, which is used to reflect on the societies of individuals.

The problem is, Popeye, even though one biology, many cultures. Nor is that just humans. Or even just primates.

For example, odd as this might seem, there is even a FISHING culture of wolves.

Bio;logy would set limits on what is possible, but inside those limits, freedom to differ. So not assured of a SINGLE morality biologically determined for a species.

And an additional problem: an instinct isn't enough to constitute morality.
For example, it might be the case that some wolves fish. But does that imply wolves "ought to" fish? As David Hume pointed out, it certainly doesn't. It doesn't even mean that a wolf from the "fishing culture of wolves" is obligated in any moral way to fish. He may switch to eating deer or carrion without it implicating a "moral" fault at all. Or if he fishes, it doesn't mean he's being a morally better wolf than those who don't fish.

I was not implying that a mono world morality should be based upon human instincts; no other human culture-based morality is based on that simplicity. No, the natural foundation of human morality is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being. The larger mono biologically based morality would have all the complications of the diverse culturally, myth-based moralities, except it would have as its logical foundation humanity's common biology. This is, in essence, moving towards a world community. A similar movement on the political front is presently taking place, with the end of Empire and colonization in favor of a world community of cooperating nations in business and trade. As humanity ventures into the cosmos, the need for a common humanity is ever more striking to the progress of mankind. Let the cosmos be the inspiration for the forming of new mythologies that shall carry us into the future, keeping the best of the old but abandoning that which is not life-sustaining. By the way, I am not a Marxist; I have never been.

[Immanuel Can]

He's trying to use biology to support his ridiculous wannabe-Marxist ideology. He doesn't remotely understand Marxism.

It's amazing, isn't it? Marx has been proved wrong by history, over and over again...and not just a little wrong, but disastrously wrong in every single case...and they still want Marxism.

That's not what I said.

Oh? I don't suppose you think Marxism can be saved, do you?

[Immanuel Can]

The problem is, Popeye, even though one biology, many cultures. Nor is that just humans. Or even just primates.

For example, odd as this might seem, there is even a FISHING culture of wolves.

Bio;logy would set limits on what is possible, but inside those limits, freedom to differ. So not assured of a SINGLE morality biologically determined for a species.

And an additional problem: an instinct isn't enough to constitute morality.
For example, it might be the case that some wolves fish. But does that imply wolves "ought to" fish? As David Hume pointed out, it certainly doesn't. It doesn't even mean that a wolf from the "fishing culture of wolves" is obligated in any moral way to fish. He may switch to eating deer or carrion without it implicating a "moral" fault at all. Or if he fishes, it doesn't mean he's being a morally better wolf than those who don't fish.

...the natural foundation of human morality is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

This logically cannot be the case. You can't know that "common biology" is a moral orientation point, or that "survival" is a moral value, or what "well-being" would be, without already having in the back of your mind some conception of morality. In other words, you've begged the whole question, assumed that the morality you are familiar with is real morality, and then run to the conclusion. Your questioners have no reason to believe you know that survival is a moral goal (lots of species go extinct, of course), or that you know what "well-being" involves, and how you extract it (ignoring Hume) from your knowledge of "common biology". You'd have to show why you think these things are moral values, and how you got that they are.

Do you have such an explanation? Or will you simply pretend you don't need one, and forge ahead? If you do the latter, we have no reason to believe you.

By the way, I am not a Marxist; I have never been.

Then I apologize for believing Veggie on that. I would never want to call somebody something as brain-dead as "Marxist" if they weren't. I retract.

[accelafine]

And an additional problem: an instinct isn't enough to constitute morality.
For example, it might be the case that some wolves fish. But does that imply wolves "ought to" fish? As David Hume pointed out, it certainly doesn't. It doesn't even mean that a wolf from the "fishing culture of wolves" is obligated in any moral way to fish. He may switch to eating deer or carrion without it implicating a "moral" fault at all. Or if he fishes, it doesn't mean he's being a morally better wolf than those who don't fish.

...the natural foundation of human morality is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

This logically cannot be the case. You can't know that "common biology" is a moral orientation point, or that "survival" is a moral value, or what "well-being" would be, without already having in the back of your mind some conception of morality. In other words, you've begged the whole question, assumed that the morality you are familiar with is real morality, and then run to the conclusion. Your questioners have no reason to believe you know that survival is a moral goal (lots of species go extinct, of course), or that you know what "well-being" involves, and how you extract it (ignoring Hume) from your knowledge of "common biology". You'd have to show why you think these things are moral values, and how you got that they are.

Do you have such an explanation? Or will you simply pretend you don't need one, and forge ahead? If you do the latter, we have no reason to believe you.

By the way, I am not a Marxist; I have never been.

Then I apologize for believing Veggie on that. I would never want to call somebody something as brain-dead as "Marxist" if they weren't. I retract.

He's the one who's always chanting 'DEATH TO COLONIZERS, DEATH TO THE WEST', which obviously includes himself (and you for that matter). Aren't they the ones you refer to as 'Marxists', or does he get a free pass because he's Canadian?

[Immanuel Can]

...the natural foundation of human morality is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

This logically cannot be the case. You can't know that "common biology" is a moral orientation point, or that "survival" is a moral value, or what "well-being" would be, without already having in the back of your mind some conception of morality. In other words, you've begged the whole question, assumed that the morality you are familiar with is real morality, and then run to the conclusion. Your questioners have no reason to believe you know that survival is a moral goal (lots of species go extinct, of course), or that you know what "well-being" involves, and how you extract it (ignoring Hume) from your knowledge of "common biology". You'd have to show why you think these things are moral values, and how you got that they are.

Do you have such an explanation? Or will you simply pretend you don't need one, and forge ahead? If you do the latter, we have no reason to believe you.

By the way, I am not a Marxist; I have never been.

Then I apologize for believing Veggie on that. I would never want to call somebody something as brain-dead as "Marxist" if they weren't. I retract.

He's the one who's always chanting 'DEATH TO COLONIZERS, DEATH TO THE WEST', which obviously includes himself (and you for that matter). Aren't they the ones you refer to as 'Marxists', or does he get a free pass because he's Canadian?

Well, he could be all kinds of things, with those axioms...but none of them particularly good, of course. He could be an Islamist, or an Anarchist, or a Wokie...or a Marxist. It's hard to say which one's the worst, but historically, it would be the latter.

[popeye1945]

And an additional problem: an instinct isn't enough to constitute morality.
For example, it might be the case that some wolves fish. But does that imply wolves "ought to" fish? As David Hume pointed out, it certainly doesn't. It doesn't even mean that a wolf from the "fishing culture of wolves" is obligated in any moral way to fish. He may switch to eating deer or carrion without it implicating a "moral" fault at all. Or if he fishes, it doesn't mean he's being a morally better wolf than those who don't fish.

...the natural foundation of human morality is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

This logically cannot be the case. You can't know that "common biology" is a moral orientation point, or that "survival" is a moral value, or what "well-being" would be, without already having in the back of your mind some conception of morality. In other words, you've begged the whole question, assumed that the morality you are familiar with is real morality, and then run to the conclusion. Your questioners have no reason to believe you know that survival is a moral goal (lots of species go extinct, of course), or that you know what "well-being" involves, and how you extract it (ignoring Hume) from your knowledge of "common biology". You'd have to show why you think these things are moral values, and how you got that they are.

Do you have such an explanation? Or will you simply pretend you don't need one, and forge ahead? If you do the latter, we have no reason to believe you.

By the way, I am not a Marxist; I have never been.

Then I apologize for believing Veggie on that. I would never want to call somebody something as brain-dead as "Marxist" if they weren't. I retract.

HI Immanuel,

I don't have an opinion on Marxist philosophy, as I have never even read about it. Personally, I find your difficulty with the idea of the foundation of morality being our common biology strange. The standard myth or religious-based idea isn't a total stranger to the idea, if somewhat indirect, with a lot of supernatural confusion. Our civic laws and court system certainly use the survival and welfare of people as that which is violated and so punishable when violated. Help me out here, what do you think should be the foundation of a common morality? Even in nature, there are moral behaviors among animal species, particular to the species group, pack, or society. It may be a simple hierarchical order of established behaviour patterns, but it ensures the survival and the welfare of the pack; these packs are individual communities. The idea of a morality based on our common biology is to draw the world into community, with no nation left out. As I've mentioned above, this is in progress on the political level presently. Humanity is moving away from Empire and colonialism into a multipolar world of cooperating nations, and it is called the BRICS federation of nations, representing at present about fifty-six percent of the world's population, and is still growing. If you have a vision of what morality should be based on, I am all ears. On Veggie, perhaps you're not familiar with her; name-calling is her favorite pastime.

[Immanuel Can]

...the natural foundation of human morality is our common biology, its survival, and its well-being.

This logically cannot be the case. You can't know that "common biology" is a moral orientation point, or that "survival" is a moral value, or what "well-being" would be, without already having in the back of your mind some conception of morality. In other words, you've begged the whole question, assumed that the morality you are familiar with is real morality, and then run to the conclusion. Your questioners have no reason to believe you know that survival is a moral goal (lots of species go extinct, of course), or that you know what "well-being" involves, and how you extract it (ignoring Hume) from your knowledge of "common biology". You'd have to show why you think these things are moral values, and how you got that they are.

Do you have such an explanation? Or will you simply pretend you don't need one, and forge ahead? If you do the latter, we have no reason to believe you.

By the way, I am not a Marxist; I have never been.

Then I apologize for believing Veggie on that. I would never want to call somebody something as brain-dead as "Marxist" if they weren't. I retract.

HI Immanuel,

I don't have an opinion on Marxist philosophy, as I have never even read about it. Personally, I find your difficulty with the idea of the foundation of morality being our common biology strange.

It's actually quite simple, and David Hume put it concisely: you can't get an "ought" from an "is." That is to say, there's no way of telling -- if one is merely observing how things are -- that they "should" be some other way, or that there's anything wrong or right about how those things are.

A simple example: a lion kills a gazelle. Is that moral, or immoral? How would we know? Lions need gazelles for food. Gazelles don't want to be killed. So what's "right" or "wrong" about the action?

In the same way, a rock falls off a cliff. Is that "right," morally, or "wrong," morally? It's not even clear that the term "moral" can be applied to such a situation. But doesn't the Materialist origin story tell us that we are just as accidental in our origins as that rock? So what makes what we do more or less "moral" than a rock falling off a cliff?

That's Hume's critique of morality, basically. And while I'm not a Humean, I can see that he has any secularist in a bind. What does "moral" even mean, in a world that is the mere product of cosmic accidents, and in which the forces that led to our being here are not even capable of caring what happens to us, or what we do?

Our civic laws and court system certainly use the survival and welfare of people as that which is violated and so punishable when violated.

But our civic laws, like everything else, are, according to secularism, just another "is" happening, and could just as easily have been their opposite. We may like to survive: but our liking counts for nothing in a Materialist universe.

No doubt, gazelles prefer not to be eaten; that doesn't even remotely imply they shouldn't be, or won't be.

Help me out here, what do you think should be the foundation of a common morality?

Well, step one: whatever it is, it must be objective, if it's to be real and obligatory. If there's no real thing as "morality," then there's no special status to the games we play with that word, and it can all be ignored. But morality is only as good as the authority behind it: when we say to somebody "You ought to do X," and they ask "why?" we need to have a better answer than, "Because that's what I just happen to prefer at the present moment."

Even in nature, there are moral behaviors among animal species,

That's not apparent.

There are certainly patterns of animal behaviour. But patterns of behaviour are just another "is," just another "way things happen to be." What gives us the means to assess them as "moral"?

Again, lions killing gazelles is certainly a pattern of behaviour. But what is its moral status, and how do we judge it?

The idea of a morality based on our common biology is to draw the world into community, with no nation left out.

That's just globalist ideology. But ask yourself this: why would that even be a good thing? Why should we wipe out the distinctiveness and independence of other nations, in order to create a homogeneous global thing? Why would it be good for decisions about what happens in Indiana or Yorkshire to be made by some globalist elite group that meets in Brussels or Hong Kong? How do we know that would even be something that would "work" for some purpose we can assess as moral?

In fact, we don't know any of that. What we do know, though, is the larger the conglomerate of people we create, the less sensitive and responsive it is to minorities, and the farther the center of decision-making is moved away from the influence of the people it affects most. So a globalist government would have no reason to be particularly concerned about you or me. On the scale they'd be dealing, we'd be even less important than random epidermal cells to a living person.

Humanity is moving away from Empire and colonialism

Not at all, actually. There's nothing more ambitious by way of "empire" than globalism. And there's nothing more "colonial" than using some areas of the world as resources for others -- which is exactly what globalism would do.

...the BRICS federation of nations...

It's almost funny when you realize that the "R" is Russia, and the "C" is China. Those are the two most totalitarian places on the planet, each with an outstandingly awful record of mistreatment of human beings. And do we look to them for salvation? When have they even given their own people basic human rights? What is the evidence of their competence to understand, let alone run, global economics? And what is their moral record?

Big BRICS is, no doubt; but both economically clumsy and hideous in terms of its moral orientation, by way of being dominated by those two nations, neither of which has a credible record of moral behaviour.

Expect disaster.

[MikeNovack]

Again, lions killing gazelles is certainly a pattern of behaviour. But what is its moral status, and how do we judge it?

On the off chance that you honestly do not know what I was talking about.

No, lions killing gazelles NOT the behavior I am talking about, but how the pride of lions shares the gazelle, maybe. That depends on whether there are different cultures of lions, different rules for sharing out the kill. NOW we can speak of the "right way" or the "wrong way" of sharing out the gazelle depending on which lion culture. OF COURSE "right" and "wrong" here have nothing to do with our human "right" and "wrong". We are not lions living in lion culture.