Is morality a human construct?

[shunyadragon]

All you are demonstrating is that we REGARD certain things as wrong, and that we have deeply emotional reasons for doing so. How does this place morality in the category of objective fact?

Excellent question! Human morality in reality does not function as an objective fact. We need an answer as to where Objective morality functions as an objective fact.

But my main point is this. You say we just "know" the statement "Eating babies is wrong" is an objective fact about reality. But we don't know that. We know that human nature has a predominant disposition to not eat babies, and that it evokes the strongest of emotional responses in us. But this is just a statement about human nature, not about whether morality is, outside of how we experience it, objective or subjective in nature. Again, we know something about how objective realities operate, and the question is, does morality exhibit the same kind of properties that lead us to the conclusion that things like the laws of physics, math, and logic are objective facts about reality? I don't think it does. In fact, quite the opposite. It has all the properties that we would expect if it were ultimately a subjective reality, with people able to create their own moral frameworks at will. And in one sense I'm with you. I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer it if morality were more similar to the unchangeable laws of physics and logic. But I don't see that.

The bold is a good comparison, but the only question would be even though based objective facts, Laws of Physics are not and logic are not necessarily 'unchangeable.'

There is no objective real world evidence that human morality is based on objective facts.

[shunyadragon]

WLC, as you probably know, deals with questions like these all of the time. Here's a link where I think he helps answer the gist of the OP:

Source: Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values

What you’re really asking, I think, is, “Why should I think that objective moral values exist rather than that evolution has made me believe in the illusion that there are objective moral values?” And the answer to that question is, “Because I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive.”

© Copyright Original Source

What one personally percieves is relative judgement based on subjective observations, and not objective facts, nor objective evidence.

Source: WLC

Now, of course, the objector’s claim here will be that we’ve got good evidence that evolution has, in fact, determined our moral perceptions and so gives us a good reason to doubt the deliverances of our moral sense. But is that true? Two issues arise with respect to this claim.

First, to infer that because evolution has programmed us to believe in certain values, therefore those values are not objective is a logical fallacy. This was the point I made in the article against Michael Ruse...

© Copyright Original Source

A real problem here with the misuse of the word 'programmed,' which reflects a misrepresentation of the scientific view of human morals and ethics. Science does not view the evolution of human morals and ethics as mechanistic programming. Actually a closer look at the proposal that an 'objective factual reality' exists is that it is a 'programming human nature' by Divine objecive morality is proposed as an rigid objective fact. There is no objective evidence that this objective factual reality exists.

He goes on, of course, and it's well worth reading if you really are curious about this topic. Unfortunately over the years I've simply read too many skeptics who are not actually interested in answers, but only in asking questions. I imagine this is more of the same.

Science and skeptics is more interested in questions and answers based on objective facts. The concept of an objective reality is not based on objective evidence nor facts

[Raul]

Human morality in reality does not function as an objective fact. We need an answer as to where Objective morality functions as an objective fact.

I agree. I think Spark is doing a great job of demonstrating that morality is based on certain predominant pro-social tendencies that extend to very depths of human nature. I agree. But he has not demonstrated that morality is some kind of objective fact about reality, or even that this is necessary in order for morality to operate similar to how other human constructs operate, with things like obligation and accountability built into it, except in an even greater and more meaningful way because they are not built in randomly or out of mere convenience or because of practicality, but are based on certain predominant, deeply ingrained aspects of human nature.

[siam]

I agree. I think Spark is doing a great job of demonstrating that morality is based on certain predominant pro-social tendencies that extend to very depths of human nature. I agree. But he has not demonstrated that morality is some kind of objective fact about reality, or even that this is necessary in order for morality to operate similar to how other human constructs operate, with things like obligation and accountability built into it, except in an even greater and more meaningful way because they are not built in randomly or out of mere convenience or because of practicality, but are based on certain predominant, deeply ingrained aspects of human nature.

Even when some moral values are a part of human nature---humans still have the capacity to accept or reject their inherent nature. Therefore, consent (free-will) is an important aspect whether morality is divinely or humanly constructed.....?....

[shunyadragon]

Even when some moral values are a part of human nature---humans still have the capacity to accept or reject their inherent nature. Therefore, consent (free-will) is an important aspect whether morality is divinely or humanly constructed.....?....

Given the objective evidence of human morality and social behavior in history the question of whether human morality and the question of free will the science demonstrates that human morality is constructed through evolution, and humans as such do not construct their own morality. The question of whether the basis of human morality is an 'Objective Morality' with a Divine origin cannot be objectively supported. It is possible, likely through natural evolution that the nature of human morality has a Divine origin, but beyond this it is a matter of belief and a religious assumption.

[shunyadragon]

I agree. I think Spark is doing a great job of demonstrating that morality is based on certain predominant pro-social tendencies that extend to very depths of human nature. I agree. But he has not demonstrated that morality is some kind of objective fact about reality, or even that this is necessary in order for morality to operate similar to how other human constructs operate, with things like obligation and accountability built into it, except in an even greater and more meaningful way because they are not built in randomly or out of mere convenience or because of practicality, but are based on certain predominant, deeply ingrained aspects of human nature.

I agree the bold, the logical problem I brought up before is that the nature of our 'human morality' is that human morality is as it is, and we cannot objectively demonstrate or compare what human morality would be with God and a world without God.

[Raul]

Even when some moral values are a part of human nature---humans still have the capacity to accept or reject their inherent nature. Therefore, consent (free-will) is an important aspect whether morality is divinely or humanly constructed.....?....

I'm not sure what free will has to do with the question of whether morality is divinely or humanly constructed, but I agree with your point that, even though human nature has a certain pro-social bent to it, we are still able to act contrary to that. We are not constrained by our evolutionarily-derived makeup. We can choose to exercise the innate empathy we've inherited from our primate ancestors, but we can, technically, choose to reject it. This is why I think other atheists are wrong when they try to use our evolutionary makeup as a reason why morality is objective. Like you said, it still comes down to our choice to follow or deny our natural tendencies, which is why I think morality is fundamentally subjective (even though it becomes objective once we construct a moral framework that has certain values built into it that can serve as the foundation). My main point in bringing up our evolutionary makeup is to say that it simplifies the task of constructing a realistic moral framework that works for everyone, because as humans we all share certain deeply-rooted tendencies. This means that the theist is wrong to say that just because morality is subjective that means moral anarchy. It fails to take into account the pro-social bent of human nature, as well as the many other factors that go into how subjective morality plays out in the real world.

[siam]

I'm not sure what free will has to do with the question of whether morality is divinely or humanly constructed, but I agree with your point that, even though human nature has a certain pro-social bent to it, we are still able to act contrary to that. We are not constrained by our evolutionarily-derived makeup. We can choose to exercise the innate empathy we've inherited from our primate ancestors, but we can, technically, choose to reject it. This is why I think other atheists are wrong when they try to use our evolutionary makeup as a reason why morality is objective. Like you said, it still comes down to our choice to follow or deny our natural tendencies, which is why I think morality is fundamentally subjective (even though it becomes objective once we construct a moral framework that has certain values built into it that can serve as the foundation). My main point in bringing up our evolutionary makeup is to say that it simplifies the task of constructing a realistic moral framework that works for everyone, because as humans we all share certain deeply-rooted tendencies. This means that the theist is wrong to say that just because morality is subjective that means moral anarchy. It fails to take into account the pro-social bent of human nature, as well as the many other factors that go into how subjective morality plays out in the real world.

"realistic" moral framework---Putting aside that "realistic" may need defining, whether the "source" of moral instincts is imparted by Divine(One God) or "Nature" (evolution), the application of it in a social framework/organization requires a "human" construction. (laws, rules, and approved behaviors). Such a construction also requires the approval/assent of the majority of the society if it were to be (justly) implemented.....regardless of the "source" of moral values/instincts.
So then, what difference would it make by positing either Divine or Nature as the source?....Perhaps in 2 ways? 1) Authority/Anarchy. 2)Principles.
---If we were to presume that Divine (One God) is a constant/unchanging force above/beyond "Human" then it becomes easier to argue that the authority presumed in such moral principles are not based on the whims of a human--- leader, monarch, government, priesthood --- subject to arbitrary change. Therefore, it becomes much easier to argue for moral principles that are consistent/constant.
---If we were to presume that the Divine (One God) is the creator of all humanity and therefore all are of equivalent worth, then it becomes much easier to argue for Just principles, and reciprocity. Without a robust concept of Equality, ---the main value from which our sense of moral principles emerge---justice and reciprocity---would not work as well....

We humans are ingenious and can work things out to "our" convenience whichever premise (Divine/Nature) we may hold to.... If we were to presume "Nature"---an evolutionary, and therefore changing "Nature" as a source for moral principles then necessarily we will need to also posit that our moral values change. And this is what many "Modernists" presume---that our moral values evolve/progress for the better over time. (to regress is not an option as that would mean moral values are of no consequence) To premise Nature as the source also means that we accept the idea of the survival of the fittest (evolutionary process) which means a hierarchy (not inherent equality). Thus, such a framework necessarily justifies the idea that some human beings are "naturally" privileged over others....(selected by "Nature"). Such a bias somewhat weakens the principles of Justice and reciprocity....?.......

Whichever premise we choose as a theoretical starting point---moral values, in the social context, must be constructed and approved by human beings/members of that society---which means that ultimately, the responsibility for the benefits or harm rests on human beings.

[siam]

Given the objective evidence of human morality and social behavior in history the question of whether human morality and the question of free will the science demonstrates that human morality is constructed through evolution, and humans as such do not construct their own morality. The question of whether the basis of human morality is an 'Objective Morality' with a Divine origin cannot be objectively supported. It is possible, likely through natural evolution that the nature of human morality has a Divine origin, but beyond this it is a matter of belief and a religious assumption.

Just some thoughts...
"modern" science demonstrates this because it presumes "Nature" as the source? If science labelled the "source" not as Nature but as Divine/One God ---then it would conclude differently. It is only about labels? moral values are abstracts after all.....?....But when it comes to philosophy---then the premises would make a difference?

[shunyadragon]

Just some thoughts...
"modern" science demonstrates this because it presumes "Nature" as the source? If science labelled the "source" not as Nature but as Divine/One God ---then it would conclude differently.

This is misleading as far as Methodological Naturalism is concerned. The only thing that Science presumes is that "Nature," our physical existence is universally consistent, which the process of falsification by scientific methods confirms. Science remains justifiably neutral to whether God is the 'source' or not.

It is only about labels? moral values are abstracts after all.....?....But when it comes to philosophy---then the premises would make a difference?

Labels are important here. I believe in God, and God is the 'Source' and Creator of All existence, but by the evidence Creation is by natural methods, or there are contradictions in Theist claims, that would falsify their view of God. God and the nature of our physical existence should not be in contradiction. This is a consistent problem with ancient religious world views.

As far as morality goes, yes, there are abstractions, but the nature of morality is consistent with the natural evolution of the behavor of humans. The issue is whether the abstraction of the claim of a Divine origin 'Objective Morality' justifies and argument for the existence of God. The bottom line is that it does not.

[Sparko]

Naturally certain morals can be intrinsically wrong, as in all cultures in history 'wrongful killing (murder)' is morally wrong. Justification of immoral acts as in Hitler murdering Jews or the Hebrew tribe ethnically cleansing their opponents does not make these acts moral. I do not believe this makes morals objective in the sense that God is necessary for the systems of human morals to exist and function in societies and cultures.

We haven't even gotten to God and if he is necessary for objective morals. Just objective morals do exist. Explaining them would be a further debate.

[Sparko]

Absolute and relative are paired. Objective and subjective are paired. Where absolute is 'always true in all cases', relative is 'true depending on initial conditions'. Where objective is 'independent of individual experience/knowledge', subjective is dependent.

The existence of the elephant is objective for the three blind men. Their knowledge of the elephant is both subjective (they experience only a piece) and relative (their experience depends on which body part they happen to be touching). Likewise, their judgment of 'hairy' or 'thin' is relative to their definition of those terms.

ok and how was my explanation wrong then?

[shunyadragon]

We haven't even gotten to God and if he is necessary for objective morals. Just objective morals do exist. Explaining them would be a further debate.

Actually, your sidestepping the actual theological argument for 'Objective Morality,' which is the real issue, for a nebulous vague poorly defined concept of 'objective morality.'

Objective refers to believing some actions are intrinsically wrong, even if certain people don't believe it is.

It is possible to believe some actions are 'intrinsically' wrong even if certain people don't believe it is' (ie the Nazis) within a naturally evolved system. Not believing in the immorality of wrongful death (murder) would be counter productive to the natural evolution of morality. The world ultimately judged and condemned the Nazis for their immoral crimes against humanity.

By definition human morality is neither 'objective' nor 'subjective.' It remains the fact that you cannot demonstrate a world of human morality that is in some way 'objective' and another world that is supposedly 'subjective,' because in reality human morality is simply as it is throughout history.

[Carrikature]

ok and how was my explanation wrong then?

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.


And to be fair, and reiterate, Raul has been far worse about this misuse of terminology. Pretty much every time he uses the word 'subjective', he's actually meaning 'relative'.

[Carrikature]

By definition human morality is neither 'objective' nor 'subjective.' It remains the fact that you cannot demonstrate a world of human morality that is in some way 'objective' and another world that is supposedly 'subjective,' because in reality human morality is simply as it is throughout history.

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).