Is morality objective or subjective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality/Ethics..
how about pure/applied, i.e.
pure ethics [morality] / applied ethics.

what is pure ethics [morality] are moral elements evolved and inherent within human nature.
Applied ethics is how we apply [optimally] the inherent moral elements to fit into the varying conditions and circumstances of the individual[s] and humanity.

Morality begins with the act.
Men encode these acts calling them "moral", and then make amendments to them, depending on their objectives.

Nihilism attempts to negate morals/ethics as they've been defined by Abrahamism.
It's the only ethical codes they know.
Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.
They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.
For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.
The immorality of in-group violence is not based on human tastes but on the fact that in-group violence decreases group cohesion and harmony, nullifying the advantages of cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Compare them to ethical rules against adultery, or even abortinos....here men intervene to make adjustments to human nature, so as to accentuate an advantage:
Monogamy, for example, integrates individuals into the group and makes them investors......and rules against abortions or promiscuity attempt to control human behaviours that reduce a group's cohesion and competitiveness: a group's overall fitness.

None of this is arbitrary but founded no objective reality.
No god required, although the concept of God becomes a method of enforcing these moral/ethical rules.

Lorikeet: Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.
They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.
For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.

I agree with the above. I have regularly used incest [inbreeding avoidance] as an example of moral objectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
At present, inbreeding avoidance is a scientific fact within Evolutionary Biology.
Inbreeding avoidance [incest deterrence] is a inhibitor [potential, functioning system] and as evolved is inherent in all humans; it is encoded in the DNA and represented by an algorithm supported by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.
This will eventually [very possible] be confirmed by neuroscience as a neuroscientific fact via the science-neuroscience-FSERC.

True, many humans had and will commit incest at present, but that is due to brain damage or a weakness of the physical incest inhibitor-system. However, whilst damaged or weak, that does not obviate the existence of the actual physical objective incest inhibitor system in the brain.

Thus, I have argued the above incest inhibitor system is physical, it is objective in the scientific sense and since it is a moral element, therefore within the moral FSERC, it is moral objectivity.

Note my take on 'what is objectivity' - nothing to do with god and theism.

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. FSERC mind interdependent sense
2. Mind-independent sense.

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
The scientific FSERC will confirm the existence of the inherent incest avoidance function and inhibitor as scientific fact and re scientific objectivity

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707
When the above scientific fact of incest avoidance is inputted into the morality-proper FSERC, then it is a moral fact, thus morality is objective [as qualified].

As such, the inbreeding avoidance system is adopted as a moral principle, i.e. "no human ought to commit incest" in alignment with what is physically inherent in all humans, DNA and neural algorithm wise.

Tribes, groups of humans can then set their respective ethical rules in accordance to the inherent moral principle.
Some may have ethical rules that forbid incest completely or forbid directly related close relatives, while for some first cousins marriage are allowable.
These are conditional rules but they do not diminish the inherent moral principle within all humans.

Because the moral principle is categorical, all must strive to align with it while making attempts to change the conditions to eliminate incest as much as possible.

So, morality is objective [sense qualified] as explained above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

None of this is arbitrary but founded no objective reality.

If it's founded on no objective reality, then it IS arbitrary, by definition. But you also said that they are "not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered." So where do they come from, and why are we obligated to follow them?

Aren't you saying that "evolution" is an "objective reality," and that morality is founded on some sort of evolutionary imperative? In that case, you have to be arguing that morality is founded on the objective reality of evolution, don't you?

Such a tangle of claims. Can you sort it out for me?

You deliberately omitted this point which is critical;

No god required, although the concept of God becomes a method of enforcing these moral/ethical rules.

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. FSERC - mind-interdependent sense - scientific objectivity
2. Mind-independent objectivity, theism [God] and philosophical realism.

What I read from the above is, Lorikeet rejected objectivity in the theistic sense of an independent God spewing independent commands in a holy book which are supposedly moral, i.e. theistic morality.
Btw, I believe theistic morality is useful [something better than nothing for the present - not future] but it is grounded on an illusory God.

When Lorikeet mentioned 'evolution' then it must be scientific based, imo [as argued above], related to scientific facts and thus scientific objectivity [of varying degrees].

[Immanuel Can]

None of this is arbitrary but founded no objective reality.

If it's founded on no objective reality, then it IS arbitrary, by definition. But you also said that they are "not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered." So where do they come from, and why are we obligated to follow them?

Aren't you saying that "evolution" is an "objective reality," and that morality is founded on some sort of evolutionary imperative? In that case, you have to be arguing that morality is founded on the objective reality of evolution, don't you?

Such a tangle of claims. Can you sort it out for me?

You deliberately omitted this point which is critical;

No god required, although the concept of God becomes a method of enforcing these moral/ethical rules.

It wasn't critical at all. It was irrelevant. I can't see one thing it adds to make the above argument coherent, or to justify what it claims. So it wasn't worth commenting on.

[Will Bouwman]

For the Pantheists, "soul" cannot be either created or destroyed, because they're all shards of the "universal soul." I suppose that's what you're thinking of?

No.

But that's an imagining the Bible does not invite.

Well, the Bible clearly invites imaginings. From your reading, when do you imagine souls are created?

[Lorikeet]

Lorikeet: Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.
They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.
For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.

I agree with the above. I have regularly used incest [inbreeding avoidance] as an example of moral objectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
At present, inbreeding avoidance is a scientific fact within Evolutionary Biology.
Inbreeding avoidance [incest deterrence] is a inhibitor [potential, functioning system] and as evolved is inherent in all humans; it is encoded in the DNA and represented by an algorithm supported by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.
This will eventually [very possible] be confirmed by neuroscience as a neuroscientific fact via the science-neuroscience-FSERC.

True, many humans had and will commit incest at present, but that is due to brain damage or a weakness of the physical incest inhibitor-system. However, whilst damaged or weak, that does not obviate the existence of the actual physical objective incest inhibitor system in the brain.

Thus, I have argued the above incest inhibitor system is physical, it is objective in the scientific sense and since it is a moral element, therefore within the moral FSERC, it is moral objectivity.

Note my take on 'what is objectivity' - nothing to do with god and theism.

Subjective = willfully created.
If not god, then man.
Objective = independent from all subjectivity.
Created through the process of natural selection.

The fact that moral behaviours can be witnessed in other species and that their common ground is cooperative reproductive and survival strategies, proves that humans, nor the god humans created, is the source of morality.

Humans are the only known species that encoded moral behaviours - converted them into language - enabling them to manipulate them.

As such, the inbreeding avoidance system is adopted as a moral principle, i.e. "no human ought to commit incest" in alignment with what is physically inherent in all humans, DNA and neural algorithm wise.

Many moral behaviours cross cultural/tribal lines and species lines.

Ethical rules that inhibit rape, is another example, or that restrict sexual behaviours, and violence.

Tribes, groups of humans can then set their respective ethical rules in accordance to the inherent moral principle.
Some may have ethical rules that forbid incest completely or forbid directly related close relatives, while for some first cousins marriage are allowable.
These are conditional rules but they do not diminish the inherent moral principle within all humans.

Ethics are amendment of moral rules of conduct....guided by cultural ideals.
Essentials they want to socially select their ideal citizen.

In nihilistic ethics they want to do so by contradicting natural moral rules of conduct.
This would include Abrahamism and its anti-natural ethics.

Because the moral principle is categorical, all must strive to align with it while making attempts to change the conditions to eliminate incest as much as possible.

Because the price is not dictated by men nor god but by the gods, i.e., nature, which will genetically punish indiscretions.

Incent will increase the probability of propagating unfit genetic mutations; intergroup violence will decrease a group's competitiveness and result in the demise of all its members.

So, morality is objective [sense qualified] as explained above.

Yes...no god necessary.
Man doesn't just conjure up shit from nowhere.

Moral behaviours, whether they are encoded or not, are essential to cooperative strategies.

Cooperation, tolerance, love, compassion, etc.
All these behaviours are necessary - Ananke, primordial Greek goddess.
They become innate because they offer an advantage to those individuals that belong to species that have evolved cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Despite this, mutations arise, so we also witness individuals being born without this innate moral impulse.

Morals and ethics are methods of imposing collective interests upon participating members.
God was invented as an all-seeing punisher of those who are compelled to break the rules.

[Lorikeet]

I'm sorry -- I don't understand this claim. It might be right, in some sense, but it's too vague. Can you clear it up for me?

Morality, like free-will, is about the act.....
Moral behaviour: loving behaviour, compassion, tolerance etc.

The act precedes the words men give them.

Then they aren't moral at all...merely pragmatic. And since they "evolve," why couldn't a moral imperative against abortion, or for war, or making prostitution and slavery "moral," also "evolve" out of them in the future? How do we know where this haphazard process of "moral evolution" is leading us, before we get there?

Even god is pragmatic.

Moral evolution, like evolution itself, is guided by natural processes.
These do not lead anywhere.
all is energy = all is dynamic interactivity, experienced as change.

Environment determines what is advantageous and what is not.
Not manmade environments, natural environments.

So...your theory is that a prohibition which almosts all ancient societies have, and is as near to universal as can be, is actually driven by the primitive native's awareness that it will produce birth defects? How would all these ancient societies even know about genetics?

What?
Do animals have to know about genetics to act in the manner that distinguishes them?
Knowledge is not necessary.

How does a lamb know it must stand and walk, or suckle?
How does your body know how to grow hair, and nails?
How does a bee know how to build its honeycombs?

Two sources of memories: DNA, Experiential.
Sometimes these come in conflict in humans when human ideals contradict natural processes.

Then why is war one of the most persistent facts of history? That theory would suggest it would be the first thing to "evolve out" of our moral beliefs. But clearly, not only did that not happen, but it isn't even happening today...at least, not in Ukraine, Israel, Iran...

Inter-group violence is destabilizing.
Violence towards other groups is not.

War is natural.
'All is war,' or 'War is the father of all' as Heraclitus said.
Your Abrahamic ethics are not nature's morals.

War persists because individuals and the groups they belong to are in a constant state of competition.

Not only human go to war.
Other species do, as well.
This is also part of natural selection.

If it's founded on no objective reality, then it IS arbitrary, by definition. But you also said that they are "not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered." So where do they come from, and why are we obligated to follow them?

Objective reality.
The flux of existence.

What is arbitrary is your subjectivity - your subjective reactions to the world's objective presence.
The world has no cares, no interests, not ends.
World includes order and chaos.

Aren't you saying that "evolution" is an "objective reality," and that morality is founded on some sort of evolutionary imperative? In that case, you have to be arguing that morality is founded on the objective reality of evolution, don't you?

Isn't that what I've done?

Such a tangle of claims. Can you sort it out for me?

Unpacking them will take time, as there are many things to explain to those who have been infected with a nihilistic belief system.

Basically...everything about existence can be explained form within existence.
No need for an 'external' agency - god - or an external realm.
That which is "outside existence" is non-existent.

Evolutionary psychology goes a long way into explaining why humans and all life, acts as it does.

________________________________________________________________________________________
How must we begin?
By cleansing our minds of all the linguistic garbage placed there for over 2 thousand years.

What are words?
What is their utility?
When we say dog, what is this symbol and what does it represent?

When we return words to their original utility, concepts like 'god', 'ethics/morality', 'free-will', 'gender/sex, 'ethnicity/race' are clarified.
We begin with the act.....the event, to phenomena.
Language is invented to refer to these phenomena.

In the beginning there was the action.

...not the word, the act came first.

[Skepdick]

In the beginning there was the action.

...not the word, the act came first.

Could you act this out, instead of telling us?

Also, there's no difference between speech and action through the lens of speech-act theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

[Skepdick]

The act precedes the words men give them.

And the thought precedes the act.
The word supersedes the thought and precedes the act.

I am going to kick you!

[Will Bouwman]

The act precedes the words men give them.

And the thought precedes the act.
The word supersedes the thought and precedes the act.

I am going to kick you!

Don't worry Lorikeet, it won't hurt.

[Skepdick]

The act precedes the words men give them.

And the thought precedes the act.
The word supersedes the thought and precedes the act.

I am going to kick you!

Don't worry Lorikeet, it won't hurt.

Having given it some thought I'm soon (but not just yet) going to call you a clown.

It won't hurt either.

[Will Bouwman]

Having given it some thought I'm soon (but not just yet) going to call you a clown.

It won't hurt either.

Nothing you say hurts. Have you considered giving it some thought before you respond?

[Skepdick]

Having given it some thought I'm soon (but not just yet) going to call you a clown.

It won't hurt either.

Nothing you say hurts.

Yeah, you are impervious to constructive criticism.

Have you considered giving it some thought before you respond?

I thought about it. And the answer is "No".

[phyllo]

And this is the very reason why I said and wrote, 'When the words 'free-will' refer to, The ability to choose, then ...'.

I used the 'when' word for the very specific reason that words can have very different meanings. Some words even have exact opposite meanings, just to confuse things up more, for you human beings.

I am not sure how I could have been any more clearer here for you.

I specifically used the 'when' word because words have ambiguity and a variety of meanings, and I wanted to make what I said and wrote as clear as could be. This is why I also say and claim that what I write and say here is missed or misunderstood.

Did you understand the very specific reason why I used the 'when' word here before I explained it more in depth now?

Then you a created a bunch of exceptions.

A so-called 'bunch of exceptions' to 'what', exactly?

Other'# 'bunches of exceptions'? Or, something else?

So you no longer have one unbeatable argument.

Why, what is needed, exactly, for a so-called 'unbeatable argument'?

And you can always claim that nobody can argue against your "sound argument" because only you know when the word "when" applies and when it doesn't. You can't lose. Congrats.

See how simple and easy finding and revealing actual irrefutable Truths and facts is?

If you're satisfied with some trivial finding or if you're satisfied with an argument based on your particular definition of words, then you have an unbeatable argument.

That's not what I find interesting.

Carry on.

[Will Bouwman]

Nothing you say hurts.

Yeah, you are impervious to constructive criticism.

It is a product of one of your character flaws that you think constructive criticism should be hurtful.

[Skepdick]

Nothing you say hurts.

Yeah, you are impervious to constructive criticism.

It is a product of one of your character flaws that you think constructive criticism should be hurtful.

I'm thinking it's exactly the other way.

Re-working one's core beliefs is always a PITA and causes much distress/cognitive dissonance.

Which is why you (and other creatures of comfort) don't do it.