If we can’t point to something external to ourselves as a reference point (a law giving God) than by definition are all morals subjective? I don’t think so. If the feeling of empathy is based in our genetic makeup – as social animals – could that serve as a starting point for a natural foundation for a moral system?
First – to avoid confusion, I’m not arguing that even that our current moral system is “the right system” – clearly most every moral system is colored by the culture – which is ultimately derived from our genetic make-up; (and the resulting ‘cultures’ in-turn effects the populations genetic make-up) — nor am I arguing that I can show that there is “the right system.” What I am arguing is that absolute moral relativism seems to be wrong. It’s wrong because it is not borne out in the morally laced language we use to communicate - the way we interact as social beings – the way we think. If I were to use the example of a child being tortured to prove my point – I wouldn’t be saying that we make moral “judgments” about the rightness or wrongness of this action. I, instead, would be saying that we have a visceral reaction that this act is wrong (no thinking required). Som the question becomes - why do we have that reaction and where does it come from? To counter this observation that because there are those who act in a ‘bad’ way (i.e. those who willingly and with glee drill holes in children) – is evidence that those ideas are relative to the actor, is similar to saying that individuals can not knowingly act in a ‘bad’ way. I don’t agree. People can certainly act amorally or immorally – that, IMO, is not an argument that a natural base for morals does not exist. The vast vast majority of us act as if drilling holes in children is wrong – no arguments. I think we are more alike and less subjective in this area than most relativists think.
I also think that relativism is wrong because it doesn’t reflect the consensus about what is right and what is wrong. In other words, how can any moral attitudes be reached when true randomness determines our judgments? And if not true randomness, than where does the first mover that orders our moral thinking come? How does a relativist use terms like “good” or even “morals are relative” when talking to others — and then expects those others to understand what he or she is talking about. I doubt this would be the case if morals are strictly relative. It would seem that a relativist wouldn’t see any worth at all in this sort of communication. Yet, these moral terms seem to be used everyday by just about everybody - as far as I can see. So, is there something ‘basic’ about us that leads almost everyone to the conclusion that drilling holes in a live child is wrong – or is it just by chance that most of us feel that way? –
I think that a moral code – based in empathy – is hard wired into who we are as social animals. How did it get there? There seems to be a survival advantage for humans who empathize with their fellow humans. Compare a primitive tribe that possesses NO empathy with one that does. Which do you think is more likely to work as a unit – and therefore, more likely to have successful hunts – more likely to acquire prime territory – more likely to spread its genetic inheritance? Empathy, in this context, serves as a social glue and provides a survival advantage to the individual and allows that individual to not only survive but spread his or her genetic inclinations. It also, IMO, serves as the source of our moral conduct. Those cultures / tribes whose “moral” conduct are truly subject to each individuals “judgments” do not last long – there is little individual advantage to staying in organizations that are not inclined to take care of their own.
In fact, cultures that evolved across oceans and never had contact with each other still exhibit common features – the list includes “ethics” along with other social behaviors conducive to social living and which provide a survival advantage —
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/eow3.htm
So, again, where do our ‘conclusions’ about right and wrong action come? I say they are inside of us as social animals – and so, morals aren’t strictly relative. What are the alternatives? If they come from our culture – than where did the culture get it – if culture got morals from our common agreement than where did that common agreement come from, and so forth, on and on until the ultimate source is reached. Now - if it is your position that “morals” come from no certain place, how do random attitudes concerning ‘morals’ ever coalesce? ----- Since, if there truly is NO organizing mechanism it would appear that they would forever remain random. But that, IMO, is not what we have —