Moral Values: Objective or Subjective (quote, Abraham, God, evolution)

I would like to hear the evidence for our moral values not being Subjective by those who believe them to be Objective. And by Objective I mean those values which are independent of human experience and which have their basis in something else.

[LuminousTruth]

that's a dumb definition. something else? that would make the values of pigs and demons objective. I think what religionists mean when they talk about "objective values" is something closer to your definition than to Plato's. When subjective values have their basis in the most Supreme being in metaphysical existance, does that make them objective... Well, I guess "supreme" is a subjective value... power OTOH is very objectively discernable... so much like a bully, a god's values become objective... going by your silly definition of "something else." Whether values can have a basis of themselves is hard to say, and most see Platonic values as unlikely: so they draw God into the picture and say it agrees with them.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I would like to hear the evidence for our moral values not being Subjective by those who believe them to be Objective. And by Objective I mean those values which are independent of human experience and which have their basis in something else.

Organisms who cooperate have a better chance of surviving than those who don't so cooperation was selected for by evolution. Cooperation automatically developed morals because to cooperate you need common codes of conduct in order to cooperate in the first place. These codes were incorporated into religions and justice systems and any social structure. Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals. They would do that if there were no humans on the planet at all so what humans call morals exist independently of human experience. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Just see Altruism in animals

[stargazzer]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I would like to hear the evidence for our moral values not being Subjective by those who believe them to be Objective. And by Objective I mean those values which are independent of human experience and which have their basis in something else.

Moral behavior relates to the principals of right vrs wrong behavior...

All behavior has a moral implication because choice is engaged. 12 Amazing Acts of Charity - MainStreet

Great acts of charity are always something else. emerge and have their roots in morality.

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

that's a dumb definition. something else? that would make the values of pigs and demons objective. I think what religionists mean when they talk about "objective values" is something closer to your definition than to Plato's. When subjective values have their basis in the most Supreme being in metaphysical existance, does that make them objective... Well, I guess "supreme" is a subjective value... power OTOH is very objectively discernable... so much like a bully, a god's values become objective... going by your silly definition of "something else." Whether values can have a basis of themselves is hard to say, and most see Platonic values as unlikely: so they draw God into the picture and say it agrees with them.

What's dumb is the ^ incoherence. One of the standard definitions of philosophers for objective moral values is that they are grounded in something outside of the person who holds those values. Theists often ground them in the the nature of 'God' to have that objectivity. And yes some have some sort of Platonic view as well - that would be objective according to the above definition. When I talk of moral values I am talking about that which relates to us humans not pigs and or 'demons' - Einstein.

If you believe in objective moral values then give your definition and reasons for there objectivity. Hopefully it will be more intelligible than your first post.

Originally Posted by ArtieE

Organisms who cooperate have a better chance of surviving than those who don't so cooperation was selected for by evolution. Cooperation automatically developed morals because to cooperate you need common codes of conduct in order to cooperate in the first place. These codes were incorporated into religions and justice systems and any social structure. Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals. They would do that if there were no humans on the planet at all so what humans call morals exist independently of human experience. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Just see Altruism in animals

I have no problem with cooperation as one means of selection for human morality. What humans call morals are human morality not mongoose morality (it that even exists). Mongooses do not reason as a way to have moral justification for their actions. You would be hard pressd to find any biologist to support the view that mongooses have 'morality' as we do. Altruism does not = nor necessitate morality as we know it and experience it. Anyway, what does this have to do with the objectivity of our moral values?

Originally Posted by stargazzer

Moral behavior relates to the principals of right vrs wrong behavior...

OK!

All behavior has a moral implication because choice is engaged. 12 Amazing Acts of Charity - MainStreet

OK!

Great acts of charity are always something else. emerge and have their roots in morality.

OK! And this answers the OP - how? IF you think that our moral values are objective then what is your evidence?

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I have no problem with cooperation as one means of selection for human morality. What humans call morals are human morality not mongoose morality (it that even exists). Mongooses do not reason as a way to have moral justification for their actions.

No they don't "reason as a way to have moral justification for their actions". That's my whole point. Morals are simply a result of evolution. No reasoning required by moongooses nor humans to behave morally. It's just an automatic result of evolution like two arms and five fingers.

Anyway, what does this have to do with the objectivity of our moral values?

Our moral values are objective because they are a result of evolution and not subjective as in thought up by humans or deities.

Originally Posted by ArtieE

No they don't "reason as a way to have moral justification for their actions". That's my whole point. Morals are simply a result of evolution. No reasoning required by moongooses nor humans to behave morally. It's just an automatic result of evolution like two arms and five fingers.Our moral values are objective because they are a result of evolution and not subjective as in thought up by humans or deities.

Yes, I agree but I am not sure that the defintion you are using for morality is the same one that applies to moral philosophy. You seem to have a very broad definition that includes 'actions' per-se. Mongooses do not apply a value like 'good' or 'bad to their actions. The realm and experience of our moral values are completely different.

I agree that the grounding for our moral values are nature and bilology but that only grounds each of our individual moral values not the totality of human moral values. As such the goal of stating that human moral values are objective is hardly reached. They are still very subjective to each person although that subjectivity does not arise from reason but the underlying organisms biology. And since each person has similar yet different biology, environmnets, and culture - all experiences that get instantiated within the nervous system they can not be objective in the standard sense of that term.

[LuminousTruth]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

What's dumb is the ^ incoherence. One of the standard definitions of philosophers for objective moral values is that they are grounded in something outside of the person who holds those values. Theists often ground them in the the nature of 'God' to have that objectivity. And yes some have some sort of Platonic view as well - that would be objective according to the above definition. When I talk of moral values I am talking about that which relates to us humans not pigs and or 'demons' - Einstein.

If you believe in objective moral values then give your definition and reasons for there objectivity. Hopefully it will be more intelligible than your first post.

But I explained a bit jumbled, Great Philosopher!

"something outside" could include little Mickey's pet mongoose.

For the values to be truly objective they would have to be grounded in the objective sense: "In and of themselves."

"something outside" simply makes them subject to whatever particular thing they are grounded upon: such as a self-righteous deity.

The Problem of Morality is as strong as the Problem of Evil when arguing against particular God concepts.
Most pro-objective-moral-theists find it troubling that they can't explain whether "objective morals" are based on God's subjective wishes or if God is a messenger of objective morals which stand in and of themselves. The Abrahamics usually stand of the side of bowing to the Power of YHWH's subjective wishes, So what they usually mean by "Nature of God" is 'Bully Power.'

The whole point I brought up "demons" is because "Evil Demon" is a common possible God talked about in philosophical discussions of morality.

One objective moral value is that doing good is good, doing bad is bad, by the law of definition. O.k. that's kinda a joke. And sorry about that first post, I didn't keep my audience in mind and started to trail off. By the end of it, I sort of just wrote down whatever I could regurgitate out of my internal dialogue... It's obvious now that its probably gonna go way over people head's, and probably way to the side as well.

A moral value like "helping old mongooses" could be inscribed into mongoose DNA and expressed as emotions, etc... but it is only moral/good because of our subjective judgement of it as such.

Numbers are not objective either, they don't exist in and of themselves, yet they represent things extremely well.

What sort of evidence are you looking for to subjectively JUDGE objectivity? Do you want physical evidence? A philosophical proof? Universal acceptance? What?