Objective morality: does it even exist?

[streetwaves]

This question is primarily posed to my fellow atheists. Religious folks feel free to join in and voice your opinion as to why you do or do not believe objective morality exists in the absence of a deity.

So, do 'right' and 'wrong' actually exist if there is no cosmic overseer setting the rules, or are we just kidding ourselves? Are moral ideas simply the invention of human beings, and therefore not really true in an objective sense of the word?

[Cinnabar325is]

"The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law - with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it."

"... some people say that the idea of a Law of Human Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to him. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to - whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired."

"But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever your find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try to break one to him he will be immediately complaining, "It's not fair!" If there is no Law of Human Nature, what is the difference between fair and unfair?"

"...I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. And the moment anyone tells us we are not keeping it, there starts up in our minds a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Human Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?"

"The truth is, we believe in decency so much - we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so - that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice it is only for our bad behavior that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry, we put our good temper down to ourselves."

"These then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thing about ourselves and the universe we live in."




If you find that interesting, there's a book you should read.

[z31maniac]

^TLDR

But I think if most would go by the golden rule we would all be OK. The ancient Greeks actually developed this, secular marriage and many other concepts later claimed by Christianity.

[Wh33lhop]

There are a whole lot of philosophies and concepts of morality that have absolutely nothing to do with a diety. They all boil down to not being a dick.

[herbivor]

This question is primarily posed to my fellow atheists. Religious folks feel free to join in and voice your opinion as to why you do or do not believe objective morality exists in the absence of a deity.

So, do 'right' and 'wrong' actually exist if there is no cosmic overseer setting the rules, or are we just kidding ourselves? Are moral ideas simply the invention of human beings, and therefore not really true in an objective sense of the word?

To answer your last question, yes, morality is a product of natural selection of human beings and many other social animals, a necessary trait in social creatures of moderate to high intelligence, so that we can mate, multiply, survive, etc. It's purely biological, and one needs only to look at several other social species and their behaviors to see that it exists amongst them as well, for the same reasons it exists in us. The concept of right and wrong do not exist in nature like gravity or weather, only amongst species that require social structure for survival.

[joshh]

There are a whole lot of philosophies and concepts of morality that have absolutely nothing to do with a diety. They all boil down to not being a dick.

Unfortunately not being a dick is subjective. Can of worms opened....

[slammin.e28]

Unfortunately not being a dick is subjective. Can of worms opened....

Joshh, don't be a dick.

[joshh]

Joshh, don't be a dick.

See it's subjective.

[streetwaves]

To answer your last question, yes, morality is a product of natural selection of human beings and many other social animals, a necessary trait in social creatures of moderate to high intelligence, so that we can mate, multiply, survive, etc. It's purely biological, and one needs only to look at several other social species and their behaviors to see that it exists amongst them as well, for the same reasons it exists in us. The concept of right and wrong do not exist in nature like gravity or weather, only amongst species that require social structure for survival.

So there is no "objective morality". We simply do what serves our continued existence best. Religious people tend to think this reduces us in some way, just as no objective meaning to our lives means to them that we would be living "meaningless lives". I disagree that in light of these facts we should feel worthless, but the fact that we live objectively meaning-less lives and are not governed by an absolute moral law seems to be inescapable.

[chadthestampede]

People are inherently selfish.

[herbivor]

So there is no "objective morality". We simply do what serves our continued existence best.

Correct. However, because of our intelligence, we have two "modes" of thinking when it comes to survival, one that is highly emotional, instinctual, reactive, subconscious, and another that is conscious, contemplative, logical. The second one, also considered "slow thinking" makes decision purely in the pursuit of happiness. Every conscious decision we make is to pursue happiness, weather it's taking a piss in the morning or taking that job you may not want. That kind of thinking is more pronounce in species of higher brain development, where contemplation of future events is possible.

People are inherently selfish.

Incorrect. In social species, selfishness is contrary to survival for the species as a whole. The behavior of vampire bats is a good example. A selfish bat that doesn't share its food is shunned from the group, and ultimately reduces its chance for survival.

[chadthestampede]

Incorrect. In social species, selfishness is contrary to survival for the species as a whole. The behavior of vampire bats is a good example. A selfish bat that doesn't share its food is shunned from the group, and ultimately reduces its chance for survival.

I believe what you're referring to is called reciprocal altruism and incidentally is not the case with your example of vampire bats

However, the consistency of the reciprocal behaviour, namely that a previously non-altruistic bat is refused help when it requires it, has not been demonstrated. Therefore, the bats do not seem to qualify yet as an example for reciprocal altruism. However, a closer look at the data shows that - except for a single interaction - all instances of feeding happened between individuals of the same group, who are on average cousins.[13] Thus, it seems much more probable that this example is a case of kin selection than reciprocal altruism.

I think that this behavior is much more complicated when it comes to humans. Even if, as you argue, humans may innately practice reciprocal altruism, I believe that if nothing else society is conditioning us more and more to be selfish.

[herbivor]

I believe what you're referring to is called reciprocal altruism and incidentally is not the case with your example of vampire bats



I think that this behavior is much more complicated when it comes to humans. Even if, as you argue, humans may innately practice reciprocal altruism, I believe that if nothing else society is conditioning us more and more to be selfish.

I stand corrected on the bats, though I was recalling the information from a nature documentary I watched a few years ago. That said, what is the difference between reciprocal altruism and selflessness? By definition they may be different, but they are inherently the same thing with regards to human behavior. So I guess, your point of view is correct with that those that are selfless, are representing reciprocal altruism, which paradoxically can be viewed as selfish behavior, but not quite the generic selfishness of greed and such.

[chadthestampede]

I stand corrected on the bats, though I was recalling the information from a nature documentary I watched a few years ago. That said, what is the difference between reciprocal altruism and selflessness? By definition they may be different, but they are inherently the same thing with regards to human behavior. So I guess, your point of view is correct with that those that are selfless, are representing reciprocal altruism, which paradoxically can be viewed as selfish behavior, but not quite the generic selfishness of greed and such.

I don't think there is a difference between the two, just different words for the same thing. Selflessness is obviously used more in regard to humans. Although I suppose it could be argued that selflessness implies that there is some sort of reward for the person being selfless, be it received through belief in religious means or some sort of self satisfaction i.e. it feels good to help people.

I'm just saying that you can't classify humans as a whole as reciprocally altruistic like you can with certain animals. Granted, there are always exceptions to the rule with animals, but as a whole we can label certain organisms as such. I don't think humans could be labeled as selfless, because the frequency of selflessness isn't there.

Now you're probably wondering how I can label people selfish if I think they can't be labeled selfless. I think that society, social norms and our concepts of morality (which are not static enough to be a constant) determine whether or not we will be selfish or selfless in a given situation, and that more often we are reverting to a primal selfishness.

Edit: What I'm trying to say, but better

The human altruistic system is a sensitive and unstable one.[1] Therefore, the tendency to give, to cheat, and the response to other’s acts of giving and cheating must be regulated by a complex psychology in each individual. Individuals differ in the degree of these tendencies and responses. According to Trivers the following emotional dispositions and their evolution can be understood in terms of regulation of altruism.[1]

Friendship and emotions of liking and disliking.
Moralistic aggression. A protection mechanism from cheaters acts to regulate the advantage of cheaters in selection against the altruists. The moralistic altruist may want to educate or even punish a cheater.
Gratitude and sympathy. A fine regulation of altruism can be associated with gratitude and sympathy in terms of cost/benefit and the level in which the beneficiary will reciprocate.
Guilt and repetitive altruism. Prevents the cheater from cheating again. The cheater shows his regret in order to save him from paying too dearly for his acts.
Subtle cheating. A stable evolutionary equilibrium could include a low percentage of mimics in controversial support of adaptive sociopathy.
Trust and suspicion. These are regulators for cheating and subtle cheating.
Partnerships. Altruism with the purpose of creating friendships.

However, it is to be noted that there is no concrete explanation on how individuals pick partners because of the scarcity of theoretical and experimental researches that assess the importance of choice; theoretically, models indicate that evolution of behaviors associated with altruism involving partner choices rarely occur due to variability of costs and benefits between multiple individuals.[15] Therefore, it is believed that the time or frequency of reciprocal actions contribute more to an individual's choice of partner than the actual reciprocal act itself .

[herbivor]

^ I think you may be thinking of morality as a complex psychological process, where I am thinking of it more as a neurological process. Both approaches to the understanding are probably correct and interdependent, but what I can say with confidence is that it is biological and not supernatural or even special to humans.