Objjective morality?

Now my question is how do we know that murder is actually bad? Why is insulting someone actually bad? Why does insulting someone hurt their feelings, and not boost it? Why are we as humans wired that way?

Isn't it crazy how all humans are wired in a way, where all of our moral conscience, moral instinct if you will, is lined up almost to perfection? No one told us about these things except for our parents, but even people born with horrible parents, still have that same conscience.

We are wired this way, but why, and how did all humans simultaneously become wired this way? There are a couple of answers.

Something caused specifically us humans to act this way. But what type of force or influence can influence one race of species to act all the same way? If this was the case you would have to argue that morality is evolutionary, but I don't see any animals enacting any moral law into their everyday lives.

And there could be more answers I'm open to new ideas, but the answer I think fits best and explains it the most, is something wired us this way, unnaturally.

Something that can give all humans through all of human history the same basic moral conscience would be a powerful force.

My question basically asks, why are good things good, and bad things bad.

Topic's author

#92

SkepticalOne

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

SkepticalOne

04.08.2023 01:02PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

There are subjectively good things, and subjectively bad things, yes?
Now my question is how do we know that murder is actually bad? Why is insulting someone actually bad? Why does insulting someone hurt their feelings, and not boost it? Why are we as humans wired that way?

Isn't it crazy how all humans are wired in a way, where all of our moral conscience, moral instinct if you will, is lined up almost to perfection?

As previously discussed, our moral conscience isn't lined up to perfection. Our morality is somewhat centered on what keeps the population together (ie. Cooperation, empathy, compassion) , but definitely not perfectly so.

If this was the case you would have to argue that morality is evolutionary, but I don't see any animals enacting any moral law into their everyday lives.

You need to broaden your horizons. Their are tons of examples of other social species consistently acting in seemingly moral ways. Link

And there could be more answers I'm open to new ideas, but the answer I think fits best and explains it the most, is something wired us this way, unnaturally.

Observations of animal morality argue against that.

My question basically asks, why are good things good, and bad things bad.

Because our species realized long ago that living with others has advantages over survival alone thus maintaining the group is beneficial to the individual. Morality isn't personal. Good things are what help maintain social cohesion. Bad things don't.

#93

YouFound_Lxam

Debates: 32

Posts: 2,125

YouFound_Lxam

04.10.2023 04:11AM

-->

@SkepticalOne

As previously discussed, our moral conscience isn't lined up to perfection. Our morality is somewhat centered on what keeps the population together (ie. Cooperation, empathy, compassion) , but definitely not perfectly so.

Our moral conscience is.

The choices we make based on that conscience isn't.

You need to broaden your horizons. Their are tons of examples of other social species consistently acting in seemingly moral ways.

Animal Morality: What It Means and Why It Matters - PMC (nih.gov)

"The empirical evidence gathered until now suggests that Rowlands may be on the right track and that some animals are indeed capable of behaving morally."

Acting morally and having a moral conscience are two different things.

If you tell a dog to give you the stick back, and it growls at you, is it "sinning?"

Because our species realized long ago that living with others has advantages over survival alone thus maintaining the group is beneficial to the individual.

So, you think that morality is evolutionary?

Ok, so it could be for the base of survival, but that moral conscience still existed, nonetheless.

If a group of cavemen decided, oh if we act this way, things work out better for us, that's not them discovering morality, that is just them acting on it. The morality was always there.

Just like a baby learning from its mistakes.

Topic's author

#94

SkepticalOne

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

SkepticalOne

04.10.2023 01:53PM

-->

@YouFound_Lxam

Our morality is somewhat centered on what keeps the population together (ie. Cooperation, empathy, compassion) , but definitely not perfectly so.
Our moral conscience is. The choices we make based on that conscience isn't.

You can continue to assert that, but it's not something you can show to be true.

Acting morally and having a moral conscience are two different things.

Moral conscience (mind?) or not, animals act in ways that if it were humans you would recognize unquestionably as moral acts.

If you tell a dog to give you the stick back, and it growls at you, is it "sinning?"

If I tell you to give the stick back and you growl at me, is it sinning? As I understand "sin", neither scenario qualifies.

So, you think that morality is evolutionary?

I think the origins of morality come from evolution, but let's not discount the role minds have played in broadening our understanding it. There was a time slavery was considered morally acceptable, but we know better now.

If a group of cavemen decided, oh if we act this way, things work out better for us, that's not them discovering morality, that is just them acting on it. The morality was always there.

That is unclear to me. How does morality predate social beings?