Why?
What, from an objective standpoint, makes “the continued survival, diversity, and reproduction of the human species” the supreme good?
Why should I base my personal behavior on what is best for the human species?
And do I need an understanding of evolutionary theory to act morally?
Use this as an argument in an Ethics class and see how far you get. The fact is, many ethical systems are based on certain axioms (such as I don’t like to feel pain or I wish to live) that are pretty far from being faith based, and built up from there. As with all philosophical arguments you can dispute the premise and the derivation, but it is nowhere near being faith based in the sense of “the Bible says it and I believe it” is.
I’ve had a thought about, and you are correct; my moral system is no more objective than faith in a god. I maintain that it is harder to falsify, though, in that we can directly observe the benefits and problems.
I suppose, upon further consideration, that this is a subjective basis for morality. It is the objective purpose of every human being to help to propogate our dna (assuming abiogenesis and the absence of a diety). Whether or not you conform to behaviors that promote “the continued survival, diversity, and reproduction of the human species” determines your relative worth as a member of our species and therefore a basis for your, let’s call it, evolutionary morality. Members of the species that had tendancies toward these moral guidlines would have been generally more successful in propagation than those who did not, thus selecting for it.
However, the value of this basis of morality is highly dependant (and therefore subjective) on your status as homo sapiens sapiens.
Because you are one, and basing personal behaviors on something beyond personal greed and desire is kinda the crux of morality.
You owe your existance to, and are a part of, something larger than yourself!
Probably not. A rudimentary grasp of the concept of teamwork should do the trick!
Oh please. Are you actually interested in the facts, or just winning the debate?
Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that what you are doing here is providing an answer, possibly a very good answer, but to the wrong question. The question you are answering is, “Given that human beings have a sense of morality, that certain things are right or wrong, morally good or morally bad, why do we have such a sense? What explains its presence in humanity?”
But that’s different from saying what if anything is, objectively, right or wrong, and why. That doesn’t tell me what I should do.
You’re giving the kind of answer science gives to the kind of question science can address. Science can tell us what is, and why, but it can’t tell us what ought to be or why. Science can’t tell me what I should do. It might be able to tell me what I should do in order to reach a certain goal, but it can’t tell me what my ultimate goal should be. In a Godless universe, there may not even be such a thing as “what I/we should do, period.”
Which brings me back to the OP. If I woke up tomorrow disbelieving in God, I would be likely to accept your theory as to the source of human morality. And, accepting that, I would be hard pressed to see why I must follow it. Why should I follow a morality that an impersonal process like evolution or biological instict has foisted upon me? If I feel like disobeying or disregarding it, why shouldn’t I? Even if I, as a result of evolutionary theory, have an instictive fear of snakes or spiders, it may be advantageous to me, either personally or as a representative of humanity, to choose to disregard or go against that fear in certain situations. Why isn’t it equally valid to choose to disregard morality?
I interpreted it as Bricker’s way of saying “Cite?” or “Can you back up that claim?”
I’ll admit, I too am kind of curious as to whether you can back up your claim.
I’ll try to remedy that as best I can.
Irrelevant.
That’s entirely up to you. You simply know there is no God. No divinity of any kind.
Anyways. My answer is that I would still act ethically. Possibly because I was conditionned that way and any other behavior would make me cringe. But of course, we humans like to rationalize things and make them meaningful. Thus the reason I would choose would be simply because it’s a (futile) gesture of defiance towards an indifferent universe. And it appeals to my romantic side.
Sure it was, but I think he’s asking for the citation not because he thinks my claim (which in fact was no more than an opinion, I just neglected to insert sufficient qualifiers) is invalid, but merely because meaningful statstics on the subject are probably hard to come by.
So all I will say on the matter is that I think it’s more common for people to abandon religion and received moral values than to abandon a self-reasoned system of moral values. Don’t you think that makes sense?
Isn’t this more of an IMHO/poll? 
(maybe I should read more)
I have. 
No, that is pretty much the same thing. All morality is faith-based.
It has to be taken on faith, in other words, that “avoiding pain” or “the desire to live” or the Bible (or the Fuhrerprinzip) or anything else is a valid basis for morality. It’s entirely subjective, and cannot be justified to anyone who doesn’t share the same faith-based axiom.
Regards,
Shodan
Because morality will be more beneficial than amorality more often than not…
In other words, you developed discernment in how you follow a system of rules because of how your brain developed. Feel free to use it. However if those decisions harm a hypothetical me, or those people who i take direct responsibility for (family, and to a lesser extent friends) look out.
Because other people also have the ability to abandon general moral codes. Retaliation and compensation are the basis of the legal system, and of vendetta justice, and act as a balancer that promotes the widespread adoption and conformity to moral codes.
Because those with the capability to do violence (also known as the State, specifically the executive branch, or some kind of informal posse) will ensure that you pay for not conforming to the morals of our society, which are really just a permutation of the evolutionary morality I’m proposing.
Relating back to the OP, this is the feedback process I believe you are asking for in your question. If I have an entirely subjective morality that I suddenly wind up disregarding as horsehit, i inevitably fall back on my psycological conditioning (avoidance of violence, dishonesty, vice ect.) and I fall back to the law and a fear of reprisal. God is unlikely to be the only reason that you do much of what you do.
Here’s an amoral question. If you woke up tomorrow and didn’t believe it was important to pay your taxes (I suppose many people already think this way :smack: ) would you continue paying them? Why or why not? What do you think would happen to you if you stopped?
You could really only get away with it if you lived on a deserted island.
I suppose the same goes for morals.
To me, the person who acts morally because he believes it’s God’s will is much scarier than the non-believer who acts morally simply because they think it’s the right thing to do.
Yes, those with flexible morality scare me, because they are unpredictable. However, faith in God is not insurance against flexible morality: I know plenty of Christians who pick and choose the parts of their faith to which they will behaviorally adhere depending on the day or the circumstance.
If you think that the statement “Most people don’t want to die or suffer unnecessary pain” being true requires the same level of faith as “There is an invisible creator deity who cares about my sex life” be my guest.
No. All morality is subjectively felt. Morality is an aesthetic, not a belief. Saying it’s
“faith-based” is like saying the smell of roses is faith-based.
It doesn’t have to be justified, just followed.
Saying “roses smell beautiful” is faith-based, in the sense that there is no way to prove objectively that they do.
And it gonna take a little more than your unsupported word to show that morality is an aesthetic rather than a belief.
Aesthetics (or esthetics) (from the Greek word αισθητική meaning a perceiver or sensitive) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty.
Well, no, that’s just my point - it doesn’t “have” to be followed unless it can be justified.
No, I didn’t say that “people don’t want to die” isn’t objectively true. I said that you can’t make it the basis of a morality unless you can establish that we must necessarily act so as to bring it about.
It is certainly true that “Nazis wanted to kill Jews during the 1930s and 40s”. But it cannot be objectively determined that therefore the decision to kill Jews was morally correct. It’s the therefore part that has not been established. IOW, a statement can be true without being a valid basis for moral reasoning.
The Bible contains the Ten Commandments - therefore it is a basis for morality.
People don’t want to die - therefore it is wrong to kill them.
Bush is President - therefore it is wrong to question him.
You see the problem - you need to establish that it is valid to draw moral inferences from a statement, even after you have established that it is true.
Regards,
Shodan
There is no need to prove that they objectively do. It’s an emotional response to a sensory experience, just like morality.
Um…no, you’re the one who would have to show that it’s anything more than a emotional response to stimuli. Claiming that subjective emotional responses have to “justified” doesn’t even make sense.
Again, the word “justify” is a non-sequitur here. Morality is followed purely for self-gratification. It requires no “justification” any more than emotional responses to smells need to be justified.
No, you made an assertion. If you can’t back it up, then withdraw it. This is GD.
Regards,
Shodan
No, YOU made an assertion that any kind of non-subjective morality can possibly exist. That’s like saying objective beauty can exist. I don’t have to prove that different individuals have different subjective feelings about what is “moral.” You are the one who has to prove that those feelings are anything but feelings.
I don’t think that debating the objectivity of the smell of roses was Diogenes’ point. I rather think it was an example pulled from the top of his head that he regrets somewhat. The smell of roses is a sensory experience, and therefore it can only be experienced subjectively. The parallel to morality is tenuous, but significant. Morality is a code of conduct, but specifically a personal code of conduct, and therefore it is not fully available to objective analysis. Morality implies a subjective frame of reference because it relates directly to internal choices and thoughts.
While the flowers don’t really help illuminate the point they do help demonstrate the internal nature of moral decisions, and the difficulty of relating the understanding of morality to anything objective or demonstratable.
Apologies in advance if i misconstrued your position in any way Dio.
Also, in response to the OP, both my wife and I used to be christians, but thought and debate between us has helped us realize that we’re athiests :dubious: .
While this hasn’t caused us to go on random killing sprees it has shifted our morality a considerable amount. In my case it has caused me to change my veiwpoint on abortion to one of cautious support from one of vehement opposition. In her case, as she is bisexual, it’s caused her to let go of a lot of shame baggage she’s been carrying around for years, and get on with some more important questions about herself.
All in all i believe the transformation has definately been a positive one for us, but a mixed bag for many of our friends and family because many are very fervent believers and it has, and is going to, strain relations as we raise our daughter 
I’d say my morality is stronger now than it was though, if that counts for anything.