Do fundamental human morals actually exist?

[erislover]

So if another culture chooses to practice slavery, you don’t think there’s any point in debating whether they’re right or wrong? Or even if they practice ritual castigation of homosexuals?

Of course there is a point in debating whether they are right or wrong. Why wouldn’t there be?

There are ethical/moral principles which simply transcend culture.

What are they? How can we be certain of their correctness?

The moment you judge whether another culture’s actions are better or worse, you are applying YOUR moral standards to that culture. Yet if morality is simply a product of one’s culture, and has no absolute foundation, then on what basis can you claim to judge that culture? Quite simply, you can’t… not rationally, and not self-consistently.

I don’t see why it is impossible for me to judge them without contradiction.[ol][li] Moral judgements must be made from within a moral framework[/li][li] There is no way to tell if one moral system is better than another without acting from within a moral system.[/li][li] I act within my moral system to judge other moral systems[/ol]Where is the contradiction?[/li][quote]
It seems to me that you’re saying (a) that you can condemn the morality of other cultures, and (b) that their morality is no better or worse than your own.
[/quote]
(b) just barely misses it. Their morality is better or worse than my own, but that judgement is only made from within a moral frame. There is no “bottoming out” or ceiling to reach, no ultimate moral system from which the final standard of correctness can come. “Better or worse moral choices” only have meaning from within a moral system… some might call that begging the question. It assumes that there is some highest morality from which to make such a judgement.

In other words, you can condemn their morality as being ‘wrong,’ yet you don’t believe you can say that their moral standards are any worse than your own. Can you not see the contradiction in that statement?

Oh, I can see it, but only when I consider the “yet” phrase as acting from within a moral system. The point is that in order to make a judgement about whether an action, event, person, or system is in some way bad or wrong can only be made from within a moral system. This itself isn’t what you seem to be disagreeing with, however. The only thing left is that there is no method of being certain which moral system is more correct because that measure can only be performed from within a moral system, and so (almost literally) demands tautology or paradox (tautology in that the system declares itself good, or paradox in that each system calls the other bad and both answers are considered to be simultaneously correct). In fact, that last parenthetical note, now that I think about it, might be your sticking point.

Consider that I judge France’s moral system (and consider that such a system exists) to be bad. At the same time, France considers America’s moral system (that exists by hypothetical supposition) to be bad. Here’s the key: there is no sense in which both of these pronouncements can be made simultaneously… we cannot objectively look at both responses without being in a third moral system, but then that demands a question: why is this third moral system fit to judge the other two?

Do you see that sort of infinite recursion when I say it like that?

Does your culture dictate that we should not be judging the morality of other cultures?

A difficult question if taken too deeply. But I would pretty much say yes, nothing prevents us from judging others for any reason except a moral element which strictly forbids it. I have no such moral element. I think such an element would be particularly crippling to the system itself and render it effectively useless.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Why don’t we find fundamental morals everywhere?

I submit that we do. The problem is that moral laws are not analogous to physical laws. Physical laws aren’t something that we ought to obey; rather, we have no choice but to obey them. In contrast, moral laws can be freely violated. In fact, that’s the very nature of moralit – moral laws exist which we should obey, but often don’t.

Unfortunately, discussions of morality are often plagued by sloppy thinking. Casual observers look at a community and say, “Look! Their moral behavior is different from ours. This proves that there are no moral absolutes!” Such thinking implicitly assumes, however, that each culture does act in a moral fashion, which is by no means true. Moreover, it fails to consider that even if some differences do exist, this by no means demonstrates that all morality is relative. It doesn’t even come close.

The fallacy of cultural moral relativism is discussed more thoroughly here and here.

[coosa]

erislover, I’ll take a stab at explaining what I think is the primary reason that intraspecies conflict continues to plague humanity, but I’m afraid it won’t offer any comfort or hope of a resolution any time soon. I hope my explanation is not terribly awkward or unclear; most of this I’m trying to put into a written form for the first time, and I lack the education and vocabulary to do so as briefly and clearly as I would like.

You said:

I don’t doubt that any particular pack, herd, tribe, or society will have some set of fundamental morals, but rather that there are any morals which must be recognized by all packs, herds, tribes, and societies.

The error that I see here is in expecting the majority of humans to perceive all members of the entire species as a single group, rather than as a large number of small, separate groups that share the same evolutionary history. Although we are intellectually aware that we are all members of the same species, emotionally we do not accept other ‘tribes’ as ‘same as I’. I think that this ‘tribal identification’ is at the root of our problem, and cannot be solved by anything but lots and lots of time - if we can survive to that point.

Briefly, I think that, for some reason, as human social groups or ‘tribes’ mastered their environment they found that the greatest threat to their survival was other tribes of humans. Perhaps it has something to do with our ability to lie, or perhaps it is an incidental side effect of emotional pair-bonding, but human tribes seem to have developed a strong sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’, and ‘them’ is always to be mistrusted and considered a potential enemy. Isn’t it extremely common for tribal groups to consider themselves ‘the only true People’? That makes the members of all other tribal groups something less than human.

And how does this relate to universal and fundamental human morals? Suppose you were able to determine that almost all human cultures (tribes) throughout history had a ‘theft taboo’ like I described in my previous post - wouldn’t that make this pretty much a universal and fundamental human moral? However, because each culture considers only itself to be ‘true humans’, they each believe that this taboo applies only to members of their tribe. Other tribes don’t deserve the same consideration!

Don’t we see evidence of this ‘my tribe first and only’ philosophy on a daily basis all over the world? Even if you ignore the big, obvious clashes like Israel vs. Palestine, Moslems vs. Christians, whites vs. blacks, what about Democrats vs. Republicans, Dallas Cowboys vs. Washington Redskins, Star Wars fans vs. Star Trek fans, the Argentinian soccer team vs. the English soccer team? (See the Pit thread!) Human civilization as a whole seems to revolve around our need to belong to a ‘tribe’ of some kind (even if we have to invent one) and the subsequent conflicts between those ‘tribes’.

So, I see the problem not as a lack of fundamental human morals, but a result of our tendency to pick who we are willing to consider ‘human’.

jjimm, I think I detect a flaw in your reasoning. You said:

Since the taboos I listed above (and add cannibalism, murder and slavery too) have in fact been acceptable in different societies over the centuries, then surely this argument is void, since those societies would have been evolutionarily unsuccessful and would have died out.

Can you point out to me a single current culture in which the taboos you listed are considered acceptable? (And some isolated Stone Age tribe that has survived only because it is almost totally isolated from the rest of human civilization doesn’t count, as its survival is due to its isolation, not the superiority of its moral values.)

If you can’t, I think you’ll have to admit that the cultures that found those actions acceptable have, indeed, been evolutionarily unsuccessful.

Of course, we may be encountering difficulties in our definition of what constitutes a ‘culture’.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Why in the world should we accept the notion that “morally right” is equivalent to “conducive to surivival”? It seem sto me that those are two entirely different matters.

In fact, I’d argue that if some tribe were to sacrifice itself in order to save another, they would be lauded as heroes – and they would be extinct.

[coosa]

JubilationTCornpone, if your post is in response to mine above it, I have to admit that I’m rather confused.

Why in the world should we accept the notion that “morally right” is equivalent to “conducive to surivival”?

Why not? The OP asked about ‘fundamental human morals’ and my impression was that he meant those that existed prior to or outside of any religious belief system; I don’t know what would be more fundamental than survival. It certainly makes more sense than having morals that are contrary to survival - an extinct species has no use for morals of any kind!

It seem sto me that those are two entirely different matters.

Why? Please clarify.

In fact, I’d argue that if some tribe were to sacrifice itself in order to save another, they would be lauded as heroes – and they would be extinct.

You’ve totally and completely lost me here. My proposal is that no tribe would knowingly and deliberately sacrifice itself in order to save another - a tribe’s primary ‘moral duty’ is to preserve itself, even if that preservation means the extinction of all other tribes. Are you saying that the tribe that commits suicide in order to save another tribe is doing what is ‘morally correct’? If so, can you explain to me why this is so?

From reading your previous post, it seems to me that you are claiming that moral laws have an existence that is independent of the existence of the human species. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, are these moral laws limited to Planet Earth, or do they exist throughout the universe and so are truly ‘universal’? Do you think that an intelligent species that evolved in another galaxy will have the same moral values as the human species?

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by coosa *
Why not? The OP asked about ‘fundamental human morals’ and my impression was that he meant those that existed prior to or outside of any religious belief system; I don’t know what would be more fundamental than survival. It certainly makes more sense than having morals that are contrary to survival - an extinct species has no use for morals of any kind!

Well even if we grant that, we should not conclude that survival = morality. Why should it?

Besides, I think there are definitely morals which run contrary to survival. Consider the humanitarians who protest the African slave trade, for example, or the oppression in Afghanistan. Such protests do not help ensure our own survival, and in fact, they can put us in danger. Nevertheless, these protests are justified on moral grounds.

Also consider the firefighters who lost their lives on September 11th, for example. Now, one might argue that they were defending members of their own “tribe,” but the point remains – morality will sometimes require sacrificing survival, rather than ensuring it. We don’t applaud them for having successfully saved anyone; rather, we applaud them because they selflessly risked their lives to save people – including the foreigners who were not of their tribe.

**
Why? Please clarify.
**

See above. There’s a difference between acting in self-interest (or even community interest) and doing what’s right.

**You’ve totally and completely lost me here. My proposal is that no tribe would knowingly and deliberately sacrifice itself in order to save another - a tribe’s primary ‘moral duty’ is to preserve itself, even if that preservation means the extinction of all other tribes. **

With all due respect, that sounds like conjecture to me – after all, who’s to say that no tribe would willingly commit this sacrifice?

Besides, let’s assume that you’re correct – that no tribe would willingly commit this act of heroism. That only tells us what they’re willing to do. It doesn’t tell us what they should do.

I, for one, applaud those heroes who willingly sacrifice their lives for others – REGARDLESS of skin color or cultural background. In fact, I have far greater respect for those who would willingly die for people of other “tribes,” instead of defending their own kind exclusively.
Y’know, we make a big deal about how we’re all human beings, and how we’re all of equal value. For this reason, I’m rather disturbed to see people singlingout the defense of one’s “tribe” as a morally laudable act. If one’s race (or tribe, or community) is truly irrelevant, then why make this distinction?

[Jabba]

JThunder: The reason for my questions above was that the inability to provide an explanation of where the putative objective moral values come from, and what their ontological status might be, are good reasons for believing they do not exist.

Secondly, to consider the idea of moral condemnation in the absence of objective values. I have never said, and I do not believe, that the absence of objective values means that it is impossible or irrational to criticise other people’s morality. To consider another of your favourite examples, I consider any system of ethics which views homosexuality ( or, more specifically, acts of gay sex) as intrinsically immoral to be irrational and that irrationality is to be considered an argument against any proposed moral code. The absence of objective values does not oblige us to give up morality. Rather, it means that we must find a set of moral axioms ( for example, universalisability, autonomy) which we consider desirable constraints on our actions and defend these axioms through a process of rational argument rather than simply appealing to their self-evident truth.

This raises another point. I have said that there are no objective values, but this does not mean that objectivity is impossible in anything. Given any set of sufficiently precise criteria, it will then be an objective matter which of two actions best satisfies them ( the subjectivity arises in the choice of criteria). Modern morality should in my view consist of deciding which criteria best reflect our view of the ways people should ( and should be allowed to) interact with each other.

JTC: You mentioned what we might call an “argument from error.” The fact that people disagree over matters of, say, subatomic physics does not mean that there are no objective truths in this subject. Why, then, does the existence of moral disagreement imply that there are no objective moral values? I am certainly willing to grant the first sentence of this argument. It is the analogy I find unconvincing. Both of our hypothetical physicists could agree on what sort of further information could settle their dispute. In the case of moral disagreement, by contrast, I do not think any such objective clarification could take place. It is not the mere fact of disagreement, but rather the nature of the disagreement, which is compelling.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by JThunder
Is there any culture that would condone torturing babies for fun?

Horrible but true. Fun, no, financial gain, yes.

Originally posted by coosa
Can you point out to me a single current culture in which the taboos you listed are considered acceptable? (And some isolated Stone Age tribe that has survived only because it is almost totally isolated from the rest of human civilization doesn’t count, as its survival is due to its isolation, not the superiority of its moral values.)

The word “superiority” is a partisan word. Why shouldn’t one include isolated tribes? Surely the point is that, if they exist today, then they have survived. I’m not saying ‘better’ or ‘worse’, I’m just saying that these taboos might not necessarly be derived from evolutionary sociology. Anyway, here you go:

CNN International - Breaking News, US News, World News and Video

for chiefly marriages of sufficiently high status, sibling marriages are permitted and honoured

Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies: Agent-Based Modeling of Social and Spatial Processes

On the Chatham Islands, 500 miles east of New Zealand… On November 19 [1835] a ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs, and axes arrived… Groups of Maori began to walk through Moriori settlements, announcing that the Moriori were now their slaves, and killing those who objected. An organaized resistance by the Moriori could still then have defeated the Maori, who were outnumbered two to one. However, the Moriori had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully. They decided in a council meeting not to fight back… Over the next few days [the Maori] killed hundreds of Moriori, cooked and ate many of the bodies, and enslaved all the others…

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.

Take also the attitude in the West towards homosexuality. Forty years ago, it was illegal. Many people felt the same way about homosexuality then, as we do about pedophilia now. Were we right then? I don’t think so. But I guarantee you’d find people from those days who could create an intellectual argument about why it is wrong - you can even find them today.

My culture tells me to ‘turn the other cheek’. I feel violence is morally wrong. So did the Moriori, and they were destroyed.

A Maori conqueror explained, “We took possession… in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed, and others we killed - but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom.”

Ibid. Clearly the Maori, who are going against what I feel to be morally correct, were the more successful tribe.

OK, that’s not present day, but it’s near-as-dammit present day, and there are of course many other examples of successful races and cultures that go against my personal and cultural morals regarding killing, even today. We’re also taking a very short-termist view of history. Humanity has been around in most parts of the world for close on 30,000 years. Several million years in Africa before that. For all but the last two hundred-or-so, all manner of things I deem unspeakable have been condoned. Currently we have taboos that I think are laudable.

But that’s the point. I have my personal morals. I condemn people who do ghastly things (including torturing babies, if it’ll make you happy). But my morals are framed in something that I have to admit is entirely culturally based. I am able to separate my emotional reaction from my ‘intellectual’ understanding.

Because one understands something does not mean one condones it.

Should we impose our moral framework on people who do not necessarily hold our views? Yes, I think we should. But I’m not going to pretend it’s anything other than cultural arrogance.

[erislover]

If people spent as much time trying to debunk moral relativism as they did simply explaining how one can recognize an absolute moral standard I think I, for one, would be much happier. “Debunking” moral relativism often takes the form, “But then there is no absolute standard of justice!” Well, no shit.

I don’t see what is so darned hard to take about that. Morality is a way of interacting with others; surely this is as dynamic as language, mannerisms, and everything else that changes over time and space?

I’ll respond to individuals a bit later today…

[Razor]

Jjimm

I’ve come here a bit late but on being derived froma society with Judaeo-Christian morals and then being averse to genocide could I say

I Samuel 15: v.3 “No go and crush Amalek… kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” Saul carries this out, slaughtering the babies and all, but spares the king, Agag, and some of the livestock. God gets very mad about this. Finally Saul “repents” and the prophet Samuel “then butchered Agag before Yahweh”.

That is, the first recorded case of genocide is in the Bible.

Tooby and Cosmides found that people have what they call a ‘cheat-detection module’

‘People who ordinarily cannot detect violations of if-then rules can do so easily and accurately whne that violation represents cheating in a situation of social exchange’. They tested this by giving people a load of If P, then Q type equations and found less than a quarter could make head nor tail of them but three times as many could do it instantly if the problems were put into a social context.

So allt he stuff about murder and rape may revolve around the question, ‘But is it fair?’ Not beyond the average three-year-old really?

Example: rape. Fair if you’re married (she’s got a contract to supply and she can’t back out on it), but not if you’re not (damaging someone else’s goods). (NO I don’t agree with this but it is what the law has said in the west until very recently).

Example: murder. OK if the judge says so, nitot if he doesn’t (aka the death penalty in the US).

And so on…

Of course racism messes it all up since loads of people seem to think racism is fair. (And no I don’t agree with that either!)

[Razor]

Jjim

Are you derived from that Judaeo-Christian society that mudered most of the Native- Americans? Or the one that murdered most of the Aborigines? Or the one that murdered and enslaved 20 million Africans? Or the one that had the Apartheid system?

Or were you not born in an English-speaking society?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by jjimm *
Horrible but true. Fun, no, financial gain, yes.

First of all, as you youself pointed out, this wasn’t done for fun. Additionally, the villian’s intent wasn’t torture, but mutilation (the suffering being incidental to their goal). Thus, this story fails to demonstrate that “torturing babies for fun is wrong” is not a moral absolute.

And second, I don’t think the story says what you think it does. The story merely says that some people are engaged in the barbaric practice of mutilating children for profit. It nowhere suggests that their culture approves of this practice. In fact, since the news article says that the police are investigating this crime, their society clearly disapproves of this heinous deed!
I think such errors are typical of the fallacies used to justify moral relativism. A casual reader may examine two different cultures, note some obvious differences, and conclude “Look! There are no moral absolutes!” Obviously, one’s thinking must be a lot more careful than that.

I, for one, think that it is ALWAYS wrong to torture homosexuals for fun. (I say “homosexuals” because it seems that jjimm finds it morally objectionable to mention babies in this context.) Now perhaps there are some cultures where this practice is lauded… but if so, they are wrong. They’re not just wrong “from my perspective” or “from my moral worldview.” They are flat-out wrong.

Ditto for slavery. The 19th-century slaveowners weren’t just wrong from our viewpoint. Rather, their actions were fundamentally, inexcusably, absolutely wrong. They may have perceived this practice to be justified, but since when did perception automatically equal reality?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by jjimm *
**Should we impose our moral framework on people who do not necessarily hold our views? Yes, I think we should. But I’m not going to pretend it’s anything other than cultural arrogance. **

Wait a minute. So you think that imposing one’s morality is rooted in nothing more than arrogance… but that we should do it anyway?

Hoo boy.

I, for one, believe that imposing one’s morality is justified – but only because I do believe in certain moral absolutes.

[leaf]

There IS an objective standard of morality… at least partially objective.

If two propositions are accepted, then an absolute moral standard must follow.

The only thing we can be objectively certain of is our own unified self-consciousness. And the one thing which our self-consciousness drives towards is a state of content… you might call it happiness, ‘oneness’ or any variety of names.

There are other beings like us, who have similar unified self-consciousnesses and similar desires for content/happiness.

If these propositions are accepted, ONE right and ONE duty emerge. The one right we claim for ourselves is the ability to search for content/happiness. But if we claim content/happiness for ourselves, we must claim it for all like beings… if we don’t, then we relinquish our own claim to it. So therefore the DUTY we all have is to act so that ALL like beings may search for their own content.

The world as it is today contains many circumstances that prevent individuals from effectively pursuing their own content/happiness… they are hobbled from birth: eg poverty, abuse of children, premature death, loneliness… It is this state of affairs we must rectify, and it is from this thought that all morality springs. Something is BAD if it is destructive to another being’s search for content.

Currently, none of us are remotely close to knowing how fulfill this duty on a global scale… so the best we can do is LEARN as much as we can.

You might argue that the so-called ‘objectivity’ of this moral standard is wrecked completely by the notion of ‘content/happiness’ which IS to some extent a cultural thing. But I think there are basics to this which apply to all humans as they are today: survival (ie food, shelter), and meaningful connection with other people.

This is only the beginning of course… and perhaps will eternally be… but that’s no excuse for not conducting our actions according to the right and duty…

[erislover]

leaf, do you find it impossible that one man might find contentment in destroying others’ capacity to feel contentment? What of this man’s contentment?

[furt]

Trying to catch up…

*Originally posted by jjimm *
As for ancient society, there are lots and lots of cites.From The Offspring of Aeolus - On the Incest Taboo by Dr. Sam Vaknin. Also try Nefertiti and Akhnaten, or Caligula and Agrippina.

–Dr. Vaknin specifically says that one may hypothetically think of a incest-allowing society. He does not say one exists, and in the sentence you quote calls it a “most universal taboo.”
–If we’re discussing morals, the question of what people actually do is not the point. You don’t have morals to stop people from doing things nobody ever does; you have morals to stop people from doing what they might actually do. Thus by definition, there are going to be “violators,” such as Caligula, et al.
–With no link, I’ll take your word on Jared Diamond, but from what I can see about him he appears rather controversial. I’ll counter-cite with Claude Levi-Strauss and let it go.

In any event, ritual cannibalism, for example, is not the same as saying you may slaughter humans indiscriminantly. If a society exists where fathers ceremonially deflower their daughters before marriage (I don’t know that one does), that does not mean there is no taboo; just that the taboo takes on a somewhat different shape.
My main quibble was with:

The fact that there is one tribe negates its universality.

You outlined three possibilities earlier:

1. There are fundamental human morals based on evolutionary biology, that work towards maintenance of the species.
2. There are fundamental human morals derived from Above.
3. Each society’s morality is self-defined.

If we operate under the assumptions of 1), the whole idea of evolution is that positive mutations survive, and negative ones die out. If prohibitions against incest or cannibalism are indeed positive mutations, we would expect those cultures with the taboo to thrive and spread, and those without it to be fading away. And of course that is exactly what we do see. Given that evolution takes thousands of years, I’d say natural selection was well on its way.

If we are looking at 2) and assuming God Or Something Like Him, I would think it entirely possible that an entire group would go astray from God’s path, and even institutionalize their sin. Think of bank-robbing parents that get their kids to join the gang. Or think of Sawney Bean. Take two “wicked” individuals, send 'em off in the woods, presto, a wicked society. I can’t think of a single religion that would be incongruent with the idea of a whole culture gone bad. In fact, if it is a fallen world, we would expect it.

Now if we assume 3) what would we expect to find? Well, I would imagine we’d see huge differences in mores, probably dictated in part by environment. But even if I allow you the “exceptions” from the arctic to the tropics, in mountains, deserts and swamps, on remote islands and inaccessible jungles we find:

99% of the world’s cultures say incest is wrong.
99% of the world’s cultures say cannibalism is wrong.
99% of the world’s cultures say infanticide is wrong.
99% of the world’s cultures say disloyalty to the tribe is wrong.
99% of the world’s cultures say disloyalty to the family is wrong.
100% of the world’s cultures say murder is wrong.

Cultures may disagree on what constitutes murder; but find me the culture that says anyone can kill anyone they want anytime thay want. If there really was no rhyme or reason behind morality, we’d expect to see a lot more diversity than we do.
When you walk into a party where everyone is dressed in black ties and evening gowns, except for one guy in a wifebeater and flip-flops, it’s a good bet the party wasn’t “come as you are.”

[leaf]

erislover

no i do not find it impossible that such a person’s contentment may derived thus…

i would have my doubts as to whether this was TRUE contentment or merely a twisted sort of satisfaction in which one never feels quite at ease or at peace

but if it was completely true and impossible to change

then this person would have forfeited their right to total contentment. The right must coexist with the duty, if they are incompatible, then the right must give way. This is because the right is dependent on the duty… once you deny contentment to other beings like yourself, you deny the security of your own contentment.

how to deal with this? if impossible to change, then maybe find ways to sate the destructive appetite which do not result in actual harm? but i think it is never IMPOSSIBLE to change a personality… very difficult sometimes perhaps but never impossible

[erislover]

furt, I think there are significant subcultures of people who don’t look upon murder as wrong per se. Gangs come to mind.

If we’re discussing morals, the question of what people actually do is not the point. You don’t have morals to stop people from doing things nobody ever does; you have morals to stop people from doing what they might actually do. Thus by definition, there are going to be “violators,” such as Caligula, et al.

Well, look, you take a statement like this and you rule out the possibility of counter-argument. I can point out subcultures that enjoy pedophilia, incest, murder, etc etc, and all you have to do is throw this card.

If there are always exceptions to an absolute system, what makes it so absolute? And, what relativists seem to ask again and again, how may we distinguish between the absolute system and the wild card? In what manner may we be asssured of our morality, and secure in our certainty?

addressing point 1
If prohibitions against incest or cannibalism are indeed positive mutations, we would expect those cultures with the taboo to thrive and spread, and those without it to be fading away. And of course that is exactly what we do see. Given that evolution takes thousands of years, I’d say natural selection was well on its way.

Well, let us not think that morals are genetically inherited, but let us operate on an intuitive level of meme theory, where ideas are inhereted in the social structure, and selection works on ideas instead of on reproduction. Taking that caveat, it must be pointed out that there is no way to tell an idea that is beneficial apart from an idea that just doesn’t destroy everything (beneficial mutation from a harmless and pointless mutation). Secondly, we muct also take into account the premise that “survivial is good” since, indeed, that is implicit in the statement “…we would expect those cultures with the [good moral element] to thrive and spread.” Survival is not necessarily good. How often do people think of suicide? Mercy killings? Assisted suicide? Or are these exceptions to the universal rule we can just ignore by your escape clause?

Also a problem with this “evolutionary morality” is that it ignores the biggest thing about evolution: diversity; and with good reason, as it can only support relativism. Consider, for example, whether it is a positive mutation to have blue eyes. Dark skin? I guess it depends on where you are. In some places it wouldn’t make much of a difference; in others, it seems almost mandatory. But then we stumble upon it: selection acts in varied ways over varied areas. Is the dark skin found on African peoples somehow better than the white skin found on the Nordics? Of course not, as each served hem in the areas they lived in. There is no frame from which we can judge both objectively.

As far as the God part goes, again we find that we would expect an exception. Nowhere have I seen something deemed universal that is supposed to have exceptions. It continues to make me wonder how we can tell which is the universal one and which is the fluke.

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by furt *
**
–If we’re discussing morals, the question of what people actually do is not the point. You don’t have morals to stop people from doing things nobody ever does; you have morals to stop people from doing what they might actually do. **

That is a very profound statement, and one which deserves special emphasis.

So many of the arguments to date have said “Look at what this culture does!” or “Look at what these individuals did!” – and from there, concludes that there are no moral absolutes. Quite simply, that conclusion does not follow. There is a tremendous difference between what people should do and what they may actually do.

Additionally, many posters are claiming that morality is defined by one’s culture – that is, by the majority of that culture’s people. Again, why should we conclude this? Why should we assume that the majority is necessarily right?

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by erislover *
Of course there is a point in debating whether they are right or wrong. Why wouldn’t there be?

Because such a debate would be foolish. You’re comparing two objects, but are using two different reference standards. It would be like entering a debate wherein the two combatants use entirely different dictionaries.

With reference to moral absolutes, you ask…

What are they? How can we be certain of their correctness?

First of all, it’s not necessary to identify these moral absolutes in order to demonstrate their mere existence. If we show that moral relativism is an incoherent worldview (as it clearly is), then moral absolutism is the only other alternative. This is a classic logical technique known as reduction ad absurdum.

And second, we’ve already identified several such moral absolutes. Is there any culture which teaches that we can kill anyone we want, anytime we want, for whatever reason? Is there any culture which teaches that homosexuals should be used for spare body parts?

For that matter, what about the “torturing babies for fun” question? Is there any culture, ANYWHERE, which believes this to be morally justified? That question still deserves an answer. (I know that jjimm doesn’t want anyone to use that illustration, but why? Is it because this practice is so fundamentally and clearly a moral abomination?)

The question of how we can identify the correct moral absolutes is an interesting one, but it’s not essential to the question of whether they exist. Moreover, the subject of moral intuition was already brought up. Not all moral principles are clear, but some of them (e.g. it’s wrong to kill just anyone you want to kill) are fairly self-evident, even if not everyone follows them.

[QUOTE]
**
I don’t see why it is impossible for me to judge them without contradiction.[ol][li] Moral judgements must be made from within a moral framework[/li][li] There is no way to tell if one moral system is better than another without acting from within a moral system.[/li][li] I act within my moral system to judge other moral systems[/ol]Where is the contradiction?**[/li][/QUOTE]

The question is one of judgment standards. You need a common standard in order to make a valid judgment.

It would be like comparing two automobiles. You can not honestly claim that Car A is better than Car B without a universal standard that transcends mere personal taste or needs. One might say “Well, I think Car A is better,” but such a judgment contains no real validity. It is merely a reflection of the individual’s personal taste, and is thus not worthy of debate.

Now if two people have a common set of criteria by which to judge these cars, then debating their judgments becomes valid. Similarly, without a common moral framework, it is foolish to compare the morality of two cultures. Without moral absolutes, we simply can not judge other cultures to be right or wrong in their actions.