Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

Hey Stile, so does this mean that for something to be objectively good that it would have to be good for everybody? I can think of a few things that are good for everybody like health or prosperity.

Don't you need people to have morality?

I agree that there is no external point of reference but the environment itself is a reference point. By that I mean that good can be measured by an entities success within any given environment.I wouldn't say that we invented the concept of good. Our notions of good are driven completely by our nature and we certainly didn't invent our nature. A full stomach is good. Ah but the truly healthy and prosperous person would never find themselves in the position of wanting or needing to commit Seppuku. The concept of morality requires the self aware actor. Without this we only have amoral behaviour. Can we say objectively that amoral behaviour is good or bad?

Yes it would but who could possibly disagree?

Success within the environment is the most objective standard that we can employ given that there are no external or more universal reference points. In fact there can never be any external reference points because if there were then they would be either supernatural or, more likely, they would be immediately recognized as part of the environment.The environment and laws of nature are like the board and the rules of the game. They are entirely objective and universally applicable. Success within this paradigm is objectively good and I would challenge anyone to produce a more objective standard. I say that it does matter because the evolution of our nature preloaded us with our behaviour patterns that are all selected based on their tendency to help us survive and procreate. So these characteristics all come from an amoral environment where good characteristics are retained and bad ones are not. When we become self aware and enter the realm of morality we then recognize good characteristics as ones that need to be promoted. The good characteristics being recognizable by their tendency to help us survive and prosper. Oh yes they would. The hunger strike uses the goodness of a full stomach to contrast the badness of an empty stomach. A hunger strike wouldn't mean anything if a full stomach wasn't universally and objectively good. Health and prosperity are not really subjective terms. Health can be measured against sickness and prosperity against poverty. The scales may not be strictly linear and have subjective reference points but they are still scales. So a monk who has eschewed wealth may be considered as successful as a rich man who has sought wealth. Both of these disparate goals lead the subject to happiness and if they don't then they were the wrong choice. What is good is different for each subject but the assessment of good/bad is the same for each subject.(edit) I meant to ask you why not.Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

Sure there is a wide variety of thought but the proof is in the pudding. We can see if life benefits from our actions or not. Short term gains are short and sustainable prosperity is greater.

The idea that has been coalescing for me is that certain behaviour for any given entity is more beneficial to that entity than some other behaviour. Whether or not the behaviour is beneficial to that entity is determined by the environment in a completely objective manner. It is this objectivity that we can use as a reference point.For example, the universe has shown us that cooperation is a successful tactic and therefore cooperation is both objectively and morally good.

Yes and so the group is part of the environment for the social individual and harming ones own environment is bad. Short term gains are short term and usually expensive like a high interest loan.What I am trying to get at is that those actions that are good for an individual are determined by the environment and that this process is objective as it not made by any conscious entity. Therefore, moral behaviour is classified in an objective manner by the environment.

I was comparing the existent available standard of success within the environment with the hypothetical outside of nature standard which would be more objective were it actually available. No I would reject that line of reason. My agreement does not affect the objectivity of your claim. I do not think that simplicity and apparentness are necessary qualities of objective and just because the topic is complicated shouldn't disqualify it from being assessed objectively. Well because morality doesn't have much to do with what colour things are...right?In order to have morality you need a self aware being and every self aware being will possess a will to survive. It will be a part of their nature. No self aware being will evolve without the primal will to survive. It can't happen and therefore we can know that trying to survive long enough to propagate is an essential quality of existence for a self aware being. (Probably for any other thing that needs to propagate as well.)Therefore, if a self aware actor is achieving this we can recognize it as success within the environment. This is an objective goal set by the nature of our existence and judged objectively by the environment in which we exist.Strikes me as being a more objective goal than striving to be green. I am sure that even Kermit the Frog would agree. I would define the terms that way. This again goes back to our nature and why certain things make us feel good. It all boils down to 'do what makes you feel good.' The group upon which you depend to survive will help you with deciding what makes you feel good.I think that Joseph Campbell had it right when he said "Follow your bliss."

That's OK. Don't confuse our ability to know what the best course of action is with the idea that there is a best course of action.Once you have a goal then you can have a best course of action. Nature has uniformly provided us with that goal and morality involves recognizing the goal and having the intent to move toward it.

I think that the will to survive is the most primal of all and is necessary for any other goal to exist. So while curiosity and competition may also be necessary or beneficial I think that without the will to survive you wont survive long enough to be curious about anything much. (A competitive nature is very close to having the will to survive.) So it is a hierarchical thing. Without survival there is nothing. I would say that if you have a goal that is identifiable as part of your very nature and if morality is 'right' behaviour then it follows that knowingly working towards that goal is moral.This bridges the gap from amoral to moral. Those things that we think are 'right' come directly from our amoral past when we knew nothing of morality. This is the lineage that gives objectivity to our concept or right and wrong. Of course this assumes that our natural behaviour is 'right' behaviour. No I don't think that I can give an objective reason beyond the thought that without survival there is nothing and something seems more interesting than nothing.

We can test for it and because we don't know we have to test for it but morality comes in with our intent. It matters more that we are trying to be right than that we actually are right. No we don't climb mountains for fun until we are thoroughly surviving and even then we are not trying to thwart the goal but rather leveraging it for excitement and excitement is practice for survival.

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.

This is what I was getting at earlier. Is this not an objective base for morality? What 'works' can be seen in hindsight.

No it isn't like that at all. It is like looking for the cure for a disease and then checking to see if your recipe works after you have concocted it. The objective assessment comes from being able to see if the remedy actually works.In relation to morality, we behave a certain way and then we can see if that behaviour actually helps more people to survive and or thrive. Like gun laws or prohibition. We can make the law and then see in hindsight if it was a good idea. The objective objective of the most good for the most people remains. A creature's ability to adapt to changing environments is an objective measure of greater fitness. Being able to survive in many environments is 'higher' up than being able to survive in only one environment. Being able to survive in any environment is evolutionary perfection.