Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

I understand what you're saying here. And I can agree with it, even.But... I still don't see a connection between what you're talking about and "morality."
What if morality should not be linked to something that is our primary evolutionary goal? What if it's an emergent property of our intelligence and should be separated from our evolutionary roots because it surpasses that level of basic instinctive savagery?How can we tell or know? This is the phrase that I don't understand... until you mention this: ...which is entirely my point.
If we're assuming that our natural behavior is "right" behavior, then I completely agree with you.
My point, and issue, is why should we make this assumption?I don't see a reason to. Right. Which is a personal, subjective reason of your own (it seems "interesting").
I don't think there's anything wrong with this... I just wouldn't call it 'objective.'On top of all this:
Why do you even want morality to be objective? (or do you? ) What makes objectivity better than subjectivity?For example:
Let's say God exists. And that God actually has decreed that our morality is to honour God.
Does this make subjective morality of helping others and not hurting others more or less "good"?To me, it makes it even better to have a priority of helping others and not hurting others even if there is some other objective goal that may (or may not) be in conflict with that.Sort of like doing something because you think it's the right thing to do instead of doing something just because you're "following orders."Orders can be objective, but doing something because your own subjective ideas motivate you... is more powerful.In this sense, to me, it doesn't even matter if we can come up with some sort of "entirely objective morality" because the subjective basis for morality created by using my intelligence and experiences is even more important to me anyway.

That's what I say. So since morality is relative (what we think and hope is right at the moment), it doesn't matter whether there really "is" an absolute right. Good point. The cost-benefit equation for evolution can get pretty complicated.

That is a good point/question. In fact morality seems to be that intellectually driven behaviour that is often aimed at suppressing our natural or instinctive behaviour. So I offer a retraction in that regard but I can't let go of the idea that survival is an objective goal that is inseparable from our existence. Behaviour that supports that goal is thus justified. If there is an objective base to our morality it becomes much easier to rationalize and defend. For the same reasons that it is better to have an objective litre or kilogram.

Again, I agree with this statement as-is.Survival is an objective goal.
The only question is... should survival be a goal to base our morals on? My colour-green scheme is an objective goal as well. It's just really obvious that we should not be basing our moral system on it because it's so silly.Letting other people decide if our actions helped them or hurt them is also an objective system. To me, this system is very connected to our morals because it's directly related to how we treat other people. Which is the entire point of having morals. I agree completely in the sense of having an objective system in place.
I do not agree for having objective reasons for using a certain system.The downside of a fully-objective system is that it removes responsibility. ("Oh, I didn't want to do that, but objectively... it aligns with the system that's in place, it's not my fault...")
Or even doing something good... did you do it because you subjectively wanted to, or just because that's the rules? Which is morally "better?"For another silly example:Let's say God comes down and objectively verifies for everyone that He exists.
God also let's us in on a little secret... God is evil and has a very objective, evil moral system that we are meant to follow.
Let's say God's evil moral system is that we should stone people to death for wearing certain fibers in their clothing.This is an objective moral system... we can objectively test clothing for the fibers.
There is an absolutely objective reason to use this system... it objectively comes from God, our creator, the universe's creator, who is evil.Do those reasons make it better to use?
What if someone kills someone because of their clothing and says "I was only following the objective moral system..." Does that make it okay?
Or do you subjectively reject this abhorrent (but objective) moral system because you subjectively think it's a terrible idea?To me, subjectively choosing our reason to have a moral basis (and what that moral basis is) is more important, and obviously a better plan.Objectivity is nice, as you say, to make comparisons and ease-of-use.
But relying on "objectivity" as "better" for everything down the line just doesn't make any sense.I think it's important to develop a very strong, objective system for morality.
(Like survival or my victim-decides system)
I think it's equally important to understand that choosing whatever-system-you-think-is-best is a subjective decision. Because that's what makes us human.Edited by Stile, : Was not ready for print. At all.

If 'good' is measured by survival, prosperity, reproduction, then these can be considered 'good' behavior. I don't think they are. The problem with this is that it is still relativistic -- one person can set up his own personal basis, but to interact with other people they need to agree on them.If I say red is good and green is bad, then we have a problem. Or I can say blue is good and red is bad and we agree on part of the basis. Yet if you are arguing an evolved morality it would be subconscious (conscious would mean learned\chosen). Many generations have been used to "solve" the problem of interpersonal interactions is social group organisms, and thus (not surprisingly) we have evolved the solution that game theory says provides the best benefit to the players in a group.Enjoy

That's not the problem, that's the strength. Exactly. We need to agree on the subjective basis before any of it means anything to us together as a group.
This is the strength of it, not a weakness.If the basis was objective, that would be a problem as it cannot adapt and is too simple for such a complex idea as "morality."
The entire point of morality is to constantly strive and search for "better ways" to treat other people "well."Such a thing is entirely subjective. If there was an objective system, it would become obsolete very quickly as people change. I agree.
But I'm not arguing for an evolved morality.
I'm arguing for an intelligent morality. One that goes beyond our basic instincts or natural history, one that is chosen based on our intelligence and personal integrity. This is true (especially with the quotes around "solve" )
Game theory gives a solution... but is it the best solution?
Can we not use our intelligence to think of a moral system that treats our fellow humans "better?"

Why not both?Things under control of Game Theory concepts (evolution of behavioural traits / evolution of culture etc) are influential in the process of us thinking about our specific situation so as to treat our fellow human beings as well as possible.

Here is something that is very much under the control of gaming theory...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8LHMKgWzUvcDupRvoiqEsg

I don't have a problem with that.
In fact, I don't even have a problem using only game theory, even.My issue is simply that we should use our intelligence to look at our options and choose what we think is the "best" one, and be clear to each other what we're thinking about when we mean "best."That is... not using game theory just because it's game theory. But using game theory because you've used your intelligence to judge the possible options and have decided that game theory is the best system to use.That's the difference I'm talking about.For some, I'm sure that best system will be game theory.
For others, I'm sure that best system will be "survival-oriented."
For others, that best system may be a blend or something else entirely.The point is to understand the basics of morality and where it comes from.
To understand that it is a subjective decision, and needs to be a subjective decision, and that this is better than it being an objective ruling from some external source (intelligent or not).Once that is understood, we can then move onto what the goal of morality should be.
Maximizing personal wealth?
Maximizing personal happiness?
Maximizing other's happiness?
Maximizing both personal and other's happiness?Once a main goal can be agreed upon, the collective intelligence of those involved can develop an objective system that is focused on that goal.One step at a time

I think we're talking past each other. Using our conscious minds to employ game theory to make decisions is not using both. Game theory gives us a sense of morality as animals. A sense that community standards are important and a drive to live by them and punish those that do not. In short, game theory has resulted in us being moral animals.RAZD said '...evolved morality it would be subconscious' and ' we have evolved the solution that game theory says provides the best benefit to the players in a group. '. Naturally, this solution is a) geared towards our evolutionary past and b) generalised.For specific solutions we should turn to our conscious mind. We may use Game Theory in our analysis, if we know how, but both conscious, learned, or inferred decision making is one, the other is unconscious unlearned instinctual moral drives, biologically involved.Hence: both.

I didn't intend to imply that it was.
I mentioned that as an example for when I was okay with using game theory alone.Deciding to use game theory because you think it's the best way to be moral is one thing.
Just using game theory because it's evolved as a basic instinct and you don't really know you're doing it is another thing.One is more impactful to being a moral person to me, the other is simply "following orders" (granted, the orders aren't from an intelligent being... but that's the gist). Yes.
I think that we should strive to use our conscious mind as much as possible when dealing with moral decisions. As that is the entire idea of morality: what do we want to do when interacting with others?I understand that some level of instinct is going to be included and may even be unavoidable. I don't have an issue with that, I just think that morality should be about trying set a goal that is the "most moral" and then trying to setup a system that's best for achieving that goal.The particulars after that (game theory, evolution, this idea, that idea...) are not as foundational (to me).Of course, the obvious question that needs to be answered is what is "most moral?"
What, specifically, is the "high ground" in a moral discussion?
Which really comes down to providing a definition for "good" and "bad."
Which is why I don't think the basic building blocks for morality can ever be objective... it all always falls back on the definition of "good/bad" How can you have an objective definition for something that is simply subjective in the first place?The definition would have to include an aspect of popular opinion, and aspects of what is currently thought of with words like "integrity" or "upstanding" or "honourable."
It would also have to be flexible... always looking for new information to move on to something better, if any such identification ever comes along.

Evolution has no right and wrong, good or bad, it just is whatever it is.
Evolution is amoral.
For if it becomes necessary to kill to survive or develop a new species, all that may be considered fair and honorable, can be thrown out the door, the end justifying the means.
If for the present time, toleration is a means of surviving, then sooner or later the survival of the increasing masses will threaten their own survival, demanding a stronger species to reduce the number of competitors.Evolution ultimately has no rights for anyone to live, or any to have quality of life, or any to claim equality.
The species which survives does so because it can and does and for no other reason. There is no purpose for any species except what happens next.
The laws of probability are the name of the game.

This is idiotic. Evolution is not planned by humans. Accordingly evolution does not represent or contradict morality. The triceratops are all gone. But nobody human caused that. Neither does gravity. Or photosynthesis. Or the weak force.

Correct. But so what?

It's a sobering thought, isn't it?