Is morality a human construct?

[Sparko]

You use subjective where the correct word is relative. A society deciding that eating babies is good only makes it a moral good in a relativistic system, same with flying planes into buildings or bombing buildings.

still not getting it. How is that not subjective? Give me an example of subjective v objective using eating babies for fun. and then an example of absolute v relative using the same example. Maybe then I can understand your objection to what I said.

[The Thinker]

Or morality operates exactly like we would expect with sin thrown into the mix.

If by "sin" you mean "an evolved social primate species that has the evolutionary ingrained tendencies for a social hierarchy, tribalism, a territorial nature, selfishness but also the capability of being altruistic and empathetic due to being a social species," then sure. We behave exactly like we would expect if that was true.

[Jim B.]

I actually am interested in answers. I want to know how Christians account for this. Here are some questions that might clarify what I'm looking for. What is it about subjective realities that make them them subjective realities? Does morality possess these characteristics? What is it about objective realities that make them objective realities? Does morality possess these characteristics?

I would say that subjective realities are true by virtue of being experienced and believed in; this is what makes them true. Objective realities are true independent of what I or anyone else experience or believe. At one time, possibly everyone believed the earth was flat, but the truth of the earth's shape was independent of beliefs. At one time, the consensus opinion was that owning another person against their will was morally premissible, but it can't be that the moral status of slavery would keep shifting as consensus opinion about it shifts. The truth-making features of morality are not opinion or belief, imo ;)

[shunyadragon]

This is simply not true. You could pretty easily show common precepts (golden rule being a perfect example) that occur time and again throughout history and point to these as facets of an objective morality that various civilizations have hit upon. A given civilization's moral code would be a subjective interpretation of the objective morality that governs all humans.

Look at the concept of harm. No one would hold that harm is a good thing, yet we have differing ideas on what actually constitutes harm. Objective morals (harm is bad) implemented subjectively (this is harm but that is not).

You actually have missed my previous posts. I have said that human morality has both 'objective and 'subjective' aspects. What you are describing is some of the objective aspects of human morality. The relative nature of human morality from culture to culture over time is the reality of the evolving nature, diversity, and what may be called individual interpretations and choices of human morality. What I object to is a morality that is defined as specifically 'objective' in the sense of what is described as a Divine Objective morality.

[Jim B.]

I grant that a subjective morality creates certain problems, such as how we deal with situations where one person's moral actions negatively affect another person. It isn't easy trying to figure out how we resolve that kind of conflict. Some things simplify it, of course, such as certain common moral instincts that, generally speaking, we all have as humans. But still, it is not easy, and I can agree that it would be so much nicer if morality operated more like the laws of physics, which are demonstrably an objective fact about reality. But how do you demonstrate that this is the case? My point is that when we observe morality, it operates very much like we would expect for a human construct to operate, with people able to create their own moral frameworks at will.

Can we really create our own moral framework at will? How can you change what you think is right and wrong at will? Different cultures can have different moral frameworks, but it's legitimate to ask if that framework is right or not. We couldn't legitimately ask that about a culture's style of decoration, say.

Just because people can have differing opinions about something does not mean that there is not a fact of the matter.

So unless you can somehow demonstrate that morality is in fact objective, in spite of the fact that it operates just like we would expect a subjective reality to operate, then we are forced to do the hard work of thinking through how we live with this reality. It sounds like what you are essentially saying is that you don't like it. But what we prefer the nature of morality might be is irrelevant. Demonstrate that it is what you say it is, or admit that you can't and let's talk about how we deal with the difficulties that a subjective morality presents.

My moral system is that my amusement is the greatest moral good, and that torturing small kids gives me the greatest amusement. Is this a matter of choice that other people cannot say is wrong, like how I decorate my house or wear my hair? Why should other people's opinions carry more weight than my opinion that torturing children is what I ought to do?

[shunyadragon]

I would say that subjective realities are true by virtue of being experienced and believed in; this is what makes them true. Objective realities are true independent of what I or anyone else experience or believe. At one time, possibly everyone believed the earth was flat, but the truth of the earth's shape was independent of beliefs. At one time, the consensus opinion was that owning another person against their will was morally premissible, but it can't be that the moral status of slavery would keep shifting as consensus opinion about it shifts. The truth-making features of morality are not opinion or belief, imo ;)

I agree with this in principle. In terms of the evolution of human behavior the Objective realities, or aspects, would be those foundation morals that are necessary for human survival such as the moral reality of wrongful death (murder) common to all cultures throughout the history of humanity.

In terms of the view of some Theists they are Divine Objective realities are true independent of what I or anyone else experiences or believes.

Both are possible.

[Raul]

I would say that subjective realities are true by virtue of being experienced and believed in; this is what makes them true. Objective realities are true independent of what I or anyone else experience or believe. At one time, possibly everyone believed the earth was flat, but the truth of the earth's shape was independent of beliefs. At one time, the consensus opinion was that owning another person against their will was morally premissible, but it can't be that the moral status of slavery would keep shifting as consensus opinion about it shifts. The truth-making features of morality are not opinion or belief, imo ;)

I agree that morality is not based on opinion or belief. At least, I would say it's not that simple. There may be some less important moral issues where that is the case, but saying it is based on opinion or belief doesn't account for our deep sense of moral disgust. What does account for this, I think, is human nature. Because we have inherited certain pro-social tendencies from our primate ancestors, things such as empathy and a sense of justice, and because these inclinations extend to the very depths of who we are, we experience such a strong emotional response when this is violated. Interestingly, other animal species each have their own sense of right and wrong informed by the unique natures that they possess. My main concern, though, is not so much whether you think morality is objective or subjective, but what reasons you give to support your claim either way. So in your case, you think morality is some kind of objective fact about reality. So what is it about what we observe about morality that leads you to that conclusion?

[shunyadragon]

I would say that subjective realities are true by virtue of being experienced and believed in; this is what makes them true. Objective realities are true independent of what I or anyone else experience or believe. At one time, possibly everyone believed the earth was flat, but the truth of the earth's shape was independent of beliefs. At one time, the consensus opinion was that owning another person against their will was morally premissible, but it can't be that the moral status of slavery would keep shifting as consensus opinion about it shifts. The truth-making features of morality are not opinion or belief, imo ;)

Another example of the evolution of morality that has a natural objective foundation is the evolution of the 'family,' sexual morality such as modesty, and contracts of marital relationships. There is considerable variation throughout history and between cultures, but the underlying objective evolutionary theme is the need for cooperation within a community to raise children safely to adulthood in a species that has a long slow maturation of its individuals. In other words the evolution of the human species must develop limiting morals concerning sexuality, and the maintenance of a stable family unit.

[shunyadragon]

This is simply not true. You could pretty easily show common precepts (golden rule being a perfect example) that occur time and again throughout history and point to these as facets of an objective morality that various civilizations have hit upon. A given civilization's moral code would be a subjective interpretation of the objective morality that governs all humans.

Look at the concept of harm. No one would hold that harm is a good thing, yet we have differing ideas on what actually constitutes harm. Objective morals (harm is bad) implemented subjectively (this is harm but that is not).

I thought it would be relevant to this what I posted in another thread which reflects my view that morality itself is neither objective nor subjective, but morality has both objective and subjective attributes.

[Jim B.]

I agree that morality is not based on opinion or belief. At least, I would say it's not that simple. There may be some less important moral issues where that is the case, but saying it is based on opinion or belief doesn't account for our deep sense of moral disgust. What does account for this, I think, is human nature. Because we have inherited certain pro-social tendencies from our primate ancestors, things such as empathy and a sense of justice, and because these inclinations extend to the very depths of who we are, we experience such a strong emotional response when this is violated. Interestingly, other animal species each have their own sense of right and wrong informed by the unique natures that they possess. My main concern, though, is not so much whether you think morality is objective or subjective, but what reasons you give to support your claim either way. So in your case, you think morality is some kind of objective fact about reality. So what is it about what we observe about morality that leads you to that conclusion?

I just lost a long post. I'll try to reconstruct the major points:

The question is whether what we take to be moral is that way because it's adaptive or the other way? If it's the first, then how do we distinguish between adaptive behaviors we might approve of morally from those we would condemn? Criticism is an essential part of moral thought, imo, both of oneself and one's own group as much as of others, but the ability to think critically about behavior would be undermined if it all comes down to what is adaptive vs. what is not.

As far as other species, I tend to doubt that they're capable of morality. The behaviors you refer to may be pre-moral sentiments at best.

I think there's a basis for the objectivity of morality based on what we observe. Take truth-telling for example. I think it's grounded in the nature of rational discourse, which I don't see as peculiar to human evolutionary history or anything similar facts. The possibility of rationality is based on a norm of truthfulness. Even lying is parasitic on the assumption of truthfulness. Fairness is also something that doesn't seem peculiar to us. If you look at it from a Rawlsian perspective, the veil of ignorance, it also appears grounded in the nature of reason and sociality in general and not in any particular evolutionary story.

[shunyadragon]

I just lost a long post. I'll try to reconstruct the major points:

The question is whether what we take to be moral is that way because it's adaptive or the other way? If it's the first, then how do we distinguish between adaptive behaviors we might approve of morally from those we would condemn? Criticism is an essential part of moral thought, imo, both of oneself and one's own group as much as of others, but the ability to think critically about behavior would be undermined if it all comes down to what is adaptive vs. what is not.

As far as other species, I tend to doubt that they're capable of morality. The behaviors you refer to may be pre-moral sentiments at best.

I think there's a basis for the objectivity of morality based on what we observe. Take truth-telling for example. I think it's grounded in the nature of rational discourse, which I don't see as peculiar to human evolutionary history or anything similar facts. The possibility of rationality is based on a norm of truthfulness. Even lying is parasitic on the assumption of truthfulness. Fairness is also something that doesn't seem peculiar to us. If you look at it from a Rawlsian perspective, the veil of ignorance, it also appears grounded in the nature of reason and sociality in general and not in any particular evolutionary story.

I believe you are highly over stating objections to the 'evolutionary' role in the nature of human behavior, and morality. There is more than sufficient evidence for the evolution of human behavior and morality. The science of evolution in human behavior is not a 'story.'

[Jim B.]

I believe you are highly over stating objections to the 'evolutionary' role in the nature of human behavior, and morality. There is more than sufficient evidence for the evolution of human behavior and morality. The science of evolution in human behavior is not a 'story.'

Sorry. I'm afraid you misread my post. I accept the evolutionary role in the development of human traits. I meant "story" in the sense of "account."

[shunyadragon]

Sorry. I'm afraid you misread my post. I accept the evolutionary role in the development of human traits. I meant "story" in the sense of "account."

This is not clear, neither is your previous post.

[Jim B.]

This is not clear, neither is your previous post.

What is not clear? I've never questioned evolution. I am questioning to what extent and in what way evolution is an 'explanation' for morality.

[shunyadragon]

What is not clear? I've never questioned evolution. I am questioning to what extent and in what way evolution is an 'explanation' for morality.

This as a matter of fact is questioning the role of evolution in the nature of of behavior and morals of humans without giving specifics of what you believe is a problem. I saw a touch of sarcasm in your post in the reference to a 'story.' Despite many unanswered questions concerning the nature of human behavior, the science of evolution does provide an adequate explanation.

In contrast I believe God is ultimately the Creator of everything, and determined the nature of human behavior and morality, and evolution at present gives an adequate explanation in terms of the physical process involved.