Do objective morals exists?

[AgnosticBoy]

We can be certain that it is not just opinion since non-human animals do it. I actually find some satisfaction in that because it is one of the few "facts" that we have about morality since it is backed by evidence.

What to you base your argument here on? Why should being an animal 'other than a human" make the slightest bit of difference re - opinion?

I stand corrected. Based on your video and other research, I accept that non-human animals can have opinions and act on them. However, they don't have opinions in the same capacity as we do. Much of their opinions are instinctual instead of being consciously formed. The latter type is more relevant to my point, like when we invent religions or moral standards.

This can and does evolve into morals.... "Do as I ask" "Do as you are told"...rules and regulations...

It does, but I would not call it objective even if it is how things are. One example is if I lose my arm that doesn't mean that humans are supposed to have one arm. Having one arm is an impairment.

Thinking of is vs. ought, objective morality is not about how things are but how things should be.

I find the Christian position to be useful in that it makes me not assume that the natural world is all there is or that it is good just because it's natural. With that in mind, it leads me to question if evolution is good or would yield such, even if it is a foundation for morality. Euthyphro dilemma applies to both the theistic and naturalistic views.

 

[William]

However, they don't have opinions in the same capacity as we do. Much of their opinions are instinctual instead of being consciously formed.

This is unknown at present. How do you mean 'consciously formed'? Do you mean it is that humans think in terms of language constructs to do with spoken word?

[Not all humans think with words.]

I see no reason as to why we would have to conclude that animals with limited vocal capacity are somehow, therefore , acting on instinct.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is unknown at present. How do you mean 'consciously formed'? Do you mean it is that humans think in terms of language constructs to do with spoken word?

[Not all humans think with words.]

I see no reason as to why we would have to conclude that animals with limited vocal capacity are somehow, therefore , acting on instinct.

By consciously formed, I meant deliberately forming a belief. I brought up an example of inventing a religion. In contrast, there are some beliefs that are so mundane that we don't have to actively form them. They form themselves and some may even be a product of instinct. For instance, if you want to open the door and then push it open, then that means you have an 'implicit belief' or acceptance that the door will open when pushed.

 

[William]

By consciously formed, I meant deliberately forming a belief.

What is a belief but an opinion?

Has it been established that morality is the product of opinion?

If so, we can add belief to that list.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What is a belief but an opinion?

Has it been established that morality is the product of opinion?

If so, we can add belief to that list.

I'm undecided on whether or not all of morality is a product of opinion. Some standards are, and I'm unsure about others.

 

[William]

I'm undecided on whether or not all of morality is a product of opinion. Some standards are, and I'm unsure about others.

Which others?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Which others?

There are moral standards that seem to be natural, like those that directly threaten survival. The moral standards based on opinion are likely to be the ones that we add to build on top of the basic standards. For instance, we can say that committed relationships are part of a moral standard that helps to ensure reproductive success and child rearing. But on top of that we also add on lifelong contracts (i.e. marriage), rules on divorce, rules on adultery, and so on, and that's where opinion and culture (or collective opinion). comes in.

On a side note, it's refreshing to go through an intellectual discussion involving two people that are willing to admit to not knowing. This makes debates feel like a process of searching for answers as opposed to those that tend to involve two members that already have their know it all minds made up, and both are not willing to budge not one inch from that. I know there are issues where things are known with a lot of certainty so debate on those matters should be more straightforward - less gray areas .

 

[William]

Like all things unfolding, morals must have existed within "The Seed of Origins" - the unseen object which existed prior to exploding [germinating] as the "Big Bang"

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's another aspect to consider when talking about morality: are they fixed or are they subject to change.

I would imagine if morality was based on survival, then the morals that existed for prehistoric humans would most likely not apply to us today since we live in a different environment. For instance, I think humans back then would not have argued much about how long jail sentences or punishment should be because they probably had no infrastructure to hold prisoners. So most probably faced the death penalty. That would not be moral today given we have more resources, in the form of jails, to house prisoners. We're much more selective on who gets the death penalty.