3 ms·

From an evolutionary perspective there are some objective morals, the most obvious being incest (simple genetics) and cold-blooded murder (mix of genetics and w

by wahern 7y ago

From an evolutionary perspective there are some objective morals, the most obvious being incest (simple genetics) and cold-blooded murder (mix of genetics and whatever dynamics give rise to human altruism, which is at the root of our specie's survival fitness). Unfortunately, the universe defies simple, categorical distinctions. Kant's categorical imperative superficially comes closest to capturing the above examples, but not really, because Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche, all seem to side-step the question of free will, at least as it relates to the meaning of morality. Free will itself of course also defies simple distinctions. The problem in all these explorations of morality is that the number of implied assumptions is enormous, and it's the character of those assumptions which matters far more than the effectively trite observations about human behavior these philosophers often make.

philipov 7y ago
Although viable offspring and stable communities are pretty natural choices for moral goods, a preference for the long term over the short term that predicates them is still a subjective decision.
- wahern 7y ago
  It depends on your definition of objective, which is part of the point. What it means to be "human" will color everybody's preferences. How many outliers does it take for a preference to become subjective rather than objective? The nature of the question, more than the question itself, will determine whether something is "subjective" or "objective". Are there objective moralities? Yes, if you qualify what objective means--e.g., approximately universally manifest preferences among humans. The particular morals, or at least the simplest aspects[1], will then tend to fall naturally from that. But if our benchmark of objectivity is something completely abstract, then objectivity is unlikely to exist. Pure math allows us to create infinite universes with consistent rules, yet only one of those universes can exist in any physical sense. As long as you can pick from those non-existent realities (which is pretty much what philosophers do), then you can always rebut any claim of universality, objectivity, etc; or even, conversely, assert objectivity of a finely detailed morality by simply predicating a claim on your universe of choice (see, e.g., Social Darwinism). [1] We don't have a good track record of fully comprehending biological determinants, especially as applied to human behavior. The interplay of culture and biology is extremely complex, and we suck at even identifying which is which, let alone inferring anything complex from the distinction.

by wahern 7y ago

philipov 7y ago

Although viable offspring and stable communities are pretty natural choices for moral goods, a preference for the long term over the short term that predicates them is still a subjective decision.

wahern 7y ago
It depends on your definition of objective, which is part of the point. What it means to be "human" will color everybody's preferences. How many outliers does it take for a preference to become subjective rather than objective? The nature of the question, more than the question itself, will determine whether something is "subjective" or "objective". Are there objective moralities? Yes, if you qualify what objective means--e.g., approximately universally manifest preferences among humans. The particular morals, or at least the simplest aspects[1], will then tend to fall naturally from that. But if our benchmark of objectivity is something completely abstract, then objectivity is unlikely to exist. Pure math allows us to create infinite universes with consistent rules, yet only one of those universes can exist in any physical sense. As long as you can pick from those non-existent realities (which is pretty much what philosophers do), then you can always rebut any claim of universality, objectivity, etc; or even, conversely, assert objectivity of a finely detailed morality by simply predicating a claim on your universe of choice (see, e.g., Social Darwinism). [1] We don't have a good track record of fully comprehending biological determinants, especially as applied to human behavior. The interplay of culture and biology is extremely complex, and we suck at even identifying which is which, let alone inferring anything complex from the distinction.