First, let me say that I love when an argument is both logical and well presented, and yours certainly is as far as I'm concerned. I just happen to have a few disagreements with some of the stickier points.
Wel thankyou by all means and likewise I enjoy that you challenge me with good arguements that get me thinking.
I wouldn't really call it an illusion, but you're right, I have a problem with calling it objective.
For instance, in your example of having a coherent debate objectivity is dependent upon all parties having the same intended outcome. Absent that agreement there's no way to determine the best possible course of action.
Actually it’s not about whether people can determine the outcome of the debate but whether people can go ahead with the debate in the first place. Either you accept that (truth & Honesty) are necessary independent morals (objective) for that debate or their not. If they are not due to some subjective view then the debate cannot possibly go ahead end of story.
Now to me this too makes "morality" illusory. Because it's dependent upon the viewpoint of the participants. If they agree about the preferred outcome, then the means by which to achieve that outcome are objective. If they don't, then it's not.
So if were were to say they are subjective and not really needed if someone subjectively said so then all human engagemnet would cease.
It's that dependence upon the viewpoint of the participants that makes it subjective.
Actually objective morality doesn't do away with people’s right to subjective views about morality. It just doesn't account for why that subjective moral position is truly right or wrong. So a person with a subjective position of morality certainly has the right to choose not to support the idea of 'Truth' and 'Honesty' being objective in debates seeking honesty. They just won't be able to have a coherent and meaningful debate.
That therefore makes 'Truth' and 'Honesty' independent from people’s views about their moral status because they are necessary morals to have a coherent debate seeking the truth of a matter. So if a person wants to have a coherent debate seeking the truth then they have to treat 'Truth' and 'Honesty' as objective.
That is the evidence for why these morals are objective because their status is independent of the subjects moral views and that’s all objectiveness requires. There is no way to make 'Truth' and 'Honesty' subjective in these types of debates.
Which is why I throw evolution into the mix, because it's independent of the participants. What they think doesn't matter.
But your sort of making evolution another entity that can determine morality and it cannot do that as morality is only a sentient thing and really only something humans can engage in. There are moral duties and obligations which only humans can do or be owed. This is something people do nowadays; they give evolution (natural selection) some creative ability when it’s just a natural process as Dawkins says it’s just a cold, pitiless and purposeless process.
Now some people would choose to throw God into the discussion at this point, but to me, evolution works just as well, but without all the accompanying histrionics.
The difference with God or a god or transcendent being is that this is exactly what is needed to ground morality because the grounding has to be outside humans yet be human like (rational, necessary and perfectly good by nature).
Correct. There are certain behaviors that are evolutionarily beneficial. And these behaviors can change over time. The societies that best incorporate those behaviors are the most likely to survive, and from their own viewpoint at least, are also the most moral. Now they may attribute this survival to the grace of God, but it's simply evolution at work, and they're understandably conflating survivability with morality.
The problem is survivability doesn't = morality. For one group survivability may have been to share things to survive whereas for another group it is to take things from others to survive. So how can you equate opposite behaviours as being morally good. The issue is survivability is still a subjective thing and evolution is not a moral agent like humans but rather a natural process.
Again...correct. However...even though one may well argue from that extreme, that doesn't mean that that extreme could ever actually occur. Evolutionarily it may simply not be feasible. But if it did occur, then "morality" would simply change to reflect it, and society would embrace the new norm.
So therefore when you say morality will change to reflect that extreme you can obviously see why I say that evolution change doesn’t reflect morality because that new so called moral norm is quite immoral. Any system that can make something like rape a new moral norm can make anything even less extreme ideas a new moral norm and therefore it has no measure of morality at all because well "there is no measure regarding morality but rather survivability".
That's exactly how evolution works. What's moral now is determined by what was most beneficial in the past. But if it's not beneficial now, then it won't be moral tomorrow. History is replete with changing morality. "Evolutionarliy beneficial" is a constantly changing standard, although on human timescales it may not look that way.
As far as I understand evolution is about adaptability to changing environments (survival of the fittest) and that adaptability is not chosen or compared to the past but is simply selected for because it randomly provides an adaptive benefit. The benefit is not because of any moral reasoning just for survivability as evolution cannot reason about morality. That behaviour just happened to be the one that provided a benefit for survival by natural selection.
But moral change is different. Its reasoned based on what is morally good which may not be best for survivability. As Dawkins quotes evolution doesn’t care about justice, truth, honesty, kindness, just what genes make it to the next generation?
This may be true. We may indeed be headed to extinction. But it's much more likely that Mr. Lynch is simply using the wrong metrics by which to determine survivability. Evolution doesn't really care what Michael Lynch thinks.
The only determinant Lynch is using is evolution, how populations evolve through natural selection and survive or not. Nevertheless it is a side-track. The point was evolution is just about natural selection, adaptability and survivability and not morality. So bacterial (prokaryotes) have proven to survive and adapt far better than humans and they don't have morality.
Ah, that's part of the elegance of the human mind, it sees the mystical in the mundane, and perhaps it's better to leave it that way. Maybe it's best that we just continue to believe in the supernatural. Because that may be the only thing that'll prove Michael Lynch wrong. Time will tell I suppose. Meanwhile evolution will continue to do what it's always done, and we'll continue to argue about God, and truth, and morality. It's worked so far.
Fair enough
Yes, some humans do act as if morality comes from outside themselves, and I can't say that we're the lesser for it. In fact it's probably true. I simply question whether it comes from God, or just natural selection. But to me, logic suggests that it's the latter.
Logically it cannot be the latter because morality requires human reasoning and moral duties are owed to humans and as far as I understand it natural selection (nature) like rocks or trees or the weather cannot reason or owe moral duties. Natural selection is just a natural process and nature is not intelligent or moral. It cannot do or create anything. It just happens along without rhyme or reason.
