Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

Do you know if anyone actually present their measure of fitness? Otherwise I'll look through the references tomorrow.

The most common measure of fitness is differential reproductive success. So how do we measure the "statistical likelihood of genes surviving" if not by an increase in the relative or absolute frequencies of that gene (there is no identified rape gene?) in the next generation. Do rapist produce more offspring than non-rapists? If not why should we believe that forced-sex mating is highly successful strategy?

Does it? Who showed that, and by which measure? In humans? Perhaps it does in mallards?

All of this is a distraction from the cogent point, because whether or not this particular example holds it highlights that we can't point to fitness and declare it moral. In the course of the discussion another behavior that is dubious as far as morality is concerned was raised, infanticide. So getting into the nitty gritty of whether or not rape improves fitness in humans does nothing to address the point. It just deflects from it.

 

[Bradskii]

As a theists, i personally believe that morality is objective and absolute because the standard I have accepted comes from my religion. However, unless I can prove my religion to be true, I cannot prove my standard to be absolute.

But we can look at examples of morality and determine if they are objective or not. I'm looking at the practicalities of the matter, not whether it can be accepted as a theoretical matter or one of faith. It's not valid to say 'X is wrong' if you think it's the right thing to do.

Take lying as the obvious example. It's a divine command not to lie. But would you lie to save the lives of your family? I'm certain that you would. So to call that lie morally wrong makes no sense.

Take 'Do not kill'. Some say it should be taken as 'do not murder'. But murder isn't an absolute concept. There's murder in the first degree, the second and third. All relative to the conditions.

Take torture. Absolutely wrong? But what you would define as torture would be different to someone else's definition. And you'd each have your reasons. Therefore it cannot be objectively wrong. It depends on the circumstances.

So again, do you think that all morality is objective? Or is there some that's relative?

 

[Fervent]

But we can look at examples of morality and determine if they are objective or not. I'm looking at the practicalities of the matter, not whether it can be accepted as a theoretical matter or one of faith. It's not valid to say 'X is wrong' if you think it's the right thing to do.

Take lying as the obvious example. It's a divine command not to lie. But would you lie to save the lives of your family? I'm certain that you would. So to call that lie morally wrong makes no sense.

Take 'Do not kill'. Some say it should be taken as 'do not murder'. But murder isn't an absolute concept. There's murder in the first degree, the second and third. All relative to the conditions.

Take torture. Absolutely wrong? But what you would define as torture would be different to someone else's definition. And you'd each have your reasons. Therefore it cannot be objectively wrong. It depends on the circumstance

Still conflating deontology with objectivity, I see. The question of whether morals are objective or not is rather simple, if person A thinks that A is wrong and person B thinks A is not wrong, is one of them mistaken? Or can they both be right?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

All of this is a distraction from the cogent point, because whether or not this particular example holds it highlights that we can't point to fitness and declare it moral. In the course of the discussion another behavior that is dubious as far as morality is concerned was raised, infanticide. So getting into the nitty gritty of whether or not rape improves fitness in humans does nothing to address the point. It just deflects from it.

Ok, so let's pretend you didn't bring it up. Where can I read the post about infanticide? I must have missed that one.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

But we can look at examples of morality and determine if they are objective or not. I'm looking at the practicalities of the matter, not whether it can be accepted as a theoretical matter or one of faith. It's not valid to say 'X is wrong' if you think it's the right thing to do.

Take lying as the obvious example. It's a divine command not to lie. But would you lie to save the lives of your family? I'm certain that you would. So to call that lie morally wrong makes no sense.

Take 'Do not kill'. Some say it should be taken as 'do not murder'. But murder isn't an absolute concept. There's murder in the first degree, the second and third. All relative to the conditions.

Take torture. Absolutely wrong? But what you would define as torture would be different to someone else's definition. And you'd each have your reasons. Therefore it cannot be objectively wrong. It depends on the circumstances.

So again, do you think that all morality is objective? Or is there someone that's relative?

As you have demonstrated by the examples you have provided, without an absolute standard, arguing about the morality of lying, killing, and torture is as nonsensical as arguing the position of north in space. I believe, as a theist, that the absolute standard for morality can be measured by the two greatest commandments: to love God and to love people. Of course, I can not force an atheist to agree to that standard.

But even if we set a secular standard in place, one in which empirical data proved that particular behaviors were objectively good because it is best for the preservation and promotion of the human species, I then would ask, "With the planet's limited resources, why is the preservation and promotion of the human species objectively good? Would it not be better for the human race to thrive and collapse with resource availability just as every other species does?" Because I could then argue that murder is objectively good for an overpopulated humanoid planet, and that rape would be objectively good if humanity was an endangered species.

 

[Fervent]

Ok, so let's pretend you didn't bring it up. Where can I read the post about infanticide? I must have missed that one.

It was mentioned as a defensive strategy by @Hans Blaster in post #853. But we need not pretend I didn't bring it up, because even if the example is simply conjectural/hypothetical the fact that it is conceivable that rape improves fitness remains salient to the attempt to equate fitness with morality.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Still conflating deontology with objectivity, I see. The question of whether morals are objective or not is rather simple, if person A thinks that A is wrong and person B thinks A is not wrong, is one of them mistaken? Or can they both be right?

How can you be sure both are wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

As you have demonstrated by the examples you have provided, without an absolute standard, arguing about the morality of lying, killing, and torture is as nonsensical as arguing the position of north in space.

My point is that having an objective morality means that we should be able to determine the truth of a moral claim and that it would be true in all cases. But we're not trying to find a fixed point. We're looking for the best path to take considering the relevant conditions. There is no objectively best path that will take us where we want to go under all conditions.

But even if we set a secular standard in place, one in which empirical data proved that particular behaviors were objectively good because it is best for the preservation and promotion of the human species...

That was a deep dive into the basis for morality using evolution to explain it. As we have seen in recent posts, not that many people in this thread have a grasp of the topic for it to be of any further worth.

But...we can see that certain acts are morally good in some situations and bad in others. Lying to a madman to save your family is good. Lying to cheat on your wife is bad. The act is relative to the conditions. How can it then be said that lying is objectively bad? It would make no sense whatsoever.

 

[Fervent]

How can you be sure both are wrong?

Both could also be wrong, but the issue remains. If A and not A cannot both be true, then we're dealing with something objective. If A and not A can both be true(or both false) then we are dealing with something that isn't objective. So if we maintain that one of them can be mistaken in their preference, then we must be dealing with something objective.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It was mentioned as a defensive strategy by @Hans Blaster in post #853.

Ok

But we need not pretend I didn't bring it up, because even if the example is simply conjectural/hypothetical the fact that it is conceivable that rape improves fitness remains salient to the attempt to equate fitness with morality.

So what numbers do we have to pronounce that "rape improves fitness remains salient"? I usually don't use the word salient but looking at the synonyms "prominent, conspicuous, striking, noticeable, and outstanding" how does it remain salient without numbers?

 

[Fervent]

That was a deep dive into the basis for morality using evolution to explain it. As we have seen in recent posts, not that many people in this thread have a grasp of the topic for it to be of any further worth.

Talking about not understanding things is rich coming from you, given that you seem to completely misunderstand what relative morality is despite trying to advocate for it.

It's relative like speed is relative in physics, which has nothing to do with contextual factors and everything to do with a defined reference.

 

[Fervent]

Ok

So what numbers do we have to pronounce that "rape improves fitness remains salient"? I usually don't use the word salient but looking at the synonyms "prominent, conspicuous, striking, noticeable, and outstanding" how does it remain salient without numbers?

The point isn't about rape improving fitness specifically, which is why examining the case is a distraction. That rape possibly improves fitness, whether or not it actually does, speaks to the fact that fitness cannot be used to define morality. To fixate on the particular example is to miss the point, either as an intentional distraction to avoid engaging with the argument or simply completely not understanding the argument that's been presented.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The point isn't about rape improving fitness specifically, which is why examining the case is a distraction. That rape possibly improves fitness, whether or not it actually does, speaks to the fact that fitness cannot be used to define morality. To fixate on the particular example is to miss the point, either as an intentional distraction to avoid engaging with the argument or simply completely not understanding the argument that's been presented.

So why did you present the case? Is it irrelevant whether or not rape improves fitness? If it doesn't actually improve fitness why does it speak against fitness being used to define morality?

 

[Fervent]

So why did you present the case? Is it irrelevant whether or not rape improves fitness? If it doesn't actually improve fitness why does it speak against fitness being used to define morality?

It is irrelevant whether it actually improves fitness or not, so long as it remains a possibility that it improves fitness. Even if it is not the actual case that it improves fitness, it being in the realm of possibility demonstrates that fitness and morality are separate concepts. I presented the example because it is a live option which is readily recognized as immoral possibly without exception. Quibbling over whether it is the case that it improves fitness fails to engage with the central point of the argument, because the thrust of the argument is that reproductive success and moral status are not equivalent. To argue that they are is simply an example of the naturalistic fallacy, and nothing more.

 

[Hans Blaster]

All of this is a distraction from the cogent point, because whether or not this particular example holds it highlights that we can't point to fitness and declare it moral.

I am not making such a claim or association. I was discussing claims that forced mating was a viable evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately the paper suggested is a poor source for even making that claim. I believe it ultimately came from this claim by ... you:

It's not what I believe, it's been demonstrated that species that have a certain percentage of rapists perservere. It's a reproductive strategy that is highly successful

There is nothing in the paper you "provided" that suggests having rapists in the human population helps humanity perservere. The paper was about how rapists could continue to exist/recur in our species in the background of the human mating system (serial pair bonds with limited outmating). The paper does not actually quantify if the strategy is successful for individuals.

In the course of the discussion another behavior that is dubious as far as morality is concerned was raised, infanticide.

Dubious? I thought your moral standards were higher than that. Oh well. That is what happens when you bring up the dubious claim that rapists were needed to make humanity prosper. Things that most consider to be highly immoral are going to be discussed in a clinical fashion.

So getting into the nitty gritty of whether or not rape improves fitness in humans does nothing to address the point. It just deflects from it.

You haven't even demonstrated it.

 

[Fervent]

I am not making such a claim or association. I was discussing claims that forced mating was a viable evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately the paper suggested is a poor source for even making that claim. I believe it ultimately came from this claim by ... you:

Yes, it came from me. But it was in response to @partinobodycular equating fitness with morality.

There is nothing in the paper you "provided" that suggests having rapists in the human population helps humanity perservere. The paper was about how rapists could continue to exist/recur in our species in the background of the human mating system (serial pair bonds with limited outmating). The paper does not actually quantify if the strategy is successful for individuals.

That's not directly relevant to the point I was making.

Dubious? I thought your moral standards were higher than that. Oh well. That is what happens when you bring up the dubious claim that rapists were needed to make humanity prosper. Things that most consider to be highly immoral are going to be discussed in a clinical fashion.

They certainly are, but I was being diplomatic in my language. Perhaps my example of rapists was less secure than I originally believed, but shifting to infanticide or any other clearly immoral behavior sustains the point. Fitness alone does not make something moral.

You haven't even demonstrated it.

Don't need to, so long as it's a live possibility the central point remains. If it is even possible for fitness to be improved via clearly immoral behavior, then fitness is entirely inappropriate to ground morality in.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, it came from me. But it was in response to @partinobodycular equating fitness with morality.

That's not directly relevant to the point I was making.

Which point? This one?

Sure, but rape imiproves fitness. Is rape moral?

I've seen nothing to that effect on the species level. For certain individuals it might improve the chance that their genes propagate. It is but one of many human male strategies for having offspring. The principle one is pair bonding. Then there is the "ladies man" strategy. There is a pair-bond plus (stepping out) or polygamy. Then there is force as a supplement to what is available to the male (any of the above or no access).

They certainly are, but I was being diplomatic in my language. Perhaps my example of rapists was less secure than I originally believed, but shifting to infanticide or any other clearly immoral behavior sustains the point. Fitness alone does not make something moral.

I did not make such a claim. It is not any particular moral act that would likely have "fitness" benefits, but rather the general instinctual sense of morality, fairness, and empathy that have fitness advantages for individuals and for the species. Morality is just what is built on top of those instincts.

Don't need to, so long as it's a live possibility the central point remains. If it is even possible for fitness to be improved via clearly immoral behavior, then fitness is entirely inappropriate to ground morality in.

Rape is basically cheating the moral/social system. Potentially reproducing without being subject to the normal constraints. This is no different than any other forms of moral/social cheating that gives the individual a potential advantage over others to survive. That a system (moral, societal, legal, or evolutionary) has ways to cheat it is not remarkable.

 

[Fervent]

Which point? This one?

Yes, that was a direct counter to the claim that fitness equates with morality.

I've seen nothing to that effect on the species level. For certain individuals it might improve the chance that their genes propagate. It is but one of many human male strategies for having offspring. The principle one is pair bonding. Then there is the "ladies man" strategy. There is a pair-bond plus (stepping out) or polygamy. Then there is force as a supplement to what is available to the male (any of the above or no access).

Besides the point.

I did not make such a claim. It is not any particular moral act that would likely have "fitness" benefits, but rather the general instinctual sense of morality, fairness, and empathy that have fitness advantages for individuals and for the species. Morality is just what is built on top of those instincts.

You may not have made that claim, but @partinobodycular did. There may be benefits to the cooperative nature of morality, but that doesn't mean we can ground morality in evolution without simply engaging with the naturalistic fallacy. Explaining how behaviors came to be is a different animal from answering the more primitive questions about the nature of moralistic beliefs and how we ground them.

Rape is basically cheating the moral/social system. Potentially reproducing without being subject to the normal constraints. This is no different than any other forms of moral/social cheating that gives the individual a potential advantage over others to survive. That a system (moral, societal, legal, or evolutionary) has ways to cheat it is not remarkable.

Sure, but it speaks to the inappropriateness of grounding questions of how things ought to be in what happens to be the case. That fitness can be improved by behaving in ways counter to moral/social systems shows that fitness is not an appropriate point to ground morality since the sole determinant of whether a behavior increases fitness is whether or not it improves reproductive success.

To be crass, "should I do this?" and "Will this get me laid?" are two totally unrelated questions.