Is all morality subjective?

One other thing folks for those who worship power all sacrifices are made upon an altar called expediency.

 

She didn't say they were. Morality is expressed through expediency. Expediency is not the proper term. Where expediency is advantageous to survival, it will be expressed. Where it is detrimental to survival, it will be rejected. Using a microwave is an expedient advantage. Trying to read a map expediently may get you killed.

The point is this. It's all in our DNA. The question in the title is somewhat misleading. "Morality" isn't subjective or objective. It simply is. Just like the hand you use to type.

@crank is correct. What we see as morality is just a set of ingrained cultural habits, which arise out of our survival instincts. Many examples of this have been given throughout the thread.

She's also correct about "morality" in the 1st world. We do it with constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and centuries of activity building wealth that, in our current era, would be considered immoral (and illegal.) Would it be immoral for China to "conquer" Taiwan? That's how we got here, so what's different between the 16th century and now that would shift the concept of morality? 5000 years of recorded history (not 8000) tells us all kinds of things, and no two stories are alike.

Of course, we've only recently gained the knowledge to attribute this to evolution, but I'm sure many philosophers have opined similar ideas since antiquity.

When morality is tied to religion, or any other absolute system, it can become dangerous, but it still emanates from survival. When one believes certain activities will enable them to survive beyond the grave, these activities may well kill them. Look at the Mayan civilization. Likewise, "do no harm" doesn't work when your neighbor is stealing your crops. And what about your neighbor? He needs to eat too, right?

It's a supremely basic and complicated subject all in one. If you start out from the point that what we term morality is simply evolutionary adaptation, then the activities of civilizations throughout recorded history begin to make sense, and you see morality as not subjective or objective, but just its being.

I hope that makes sense.

 

Expediency and morality are almost always at odds in no small part because what appears to be expedient today often proves a disaster long term.

 

I know their goals - not because I'm clever (I'm not), but because those goals can so easily be seen in our increasing dissolution and dependence.

As for understanding it - that depends on whether one regards it as accidental, or deliberate. If you're of the belief it's accidental, then you need to convince yourself that educated adults couldn't see it coming - when even a child knows what will happen if you remove consequences from actions. Personally, I don't believe functioning adults could possibly be that stupid, or vain enough to think our 'moral goodness' will somehow trump our animal nature. IOW, I understand it to be entirely deliberate.

 

Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't.

 

Animals will steal each other's food - humans are supposed to be above that.

 

Yes, it can appear that way, and that's pretty much what I was saying.

Our march toward expediency is certainly driven by survival instinct. We wouldn't have 7 billion people on the planet if it weren't. Whatever activities occur during our quest for expediency is judged by us in varying degrees of morality, changing over time. Slavery is a perfect example. But it all begins as an advantage to passing on our genes.

As I discussed earlier, we have pretty much successfully dodged the natural selection bullet, and our survival ever-increasingly depends on our wits. We invent ideas in our heads to explain our behavior, and morality is but one such area of philosophy.

 

Humans are animals. I'm not gonna look for it, but we already discussed the Donner Party. The Native guides hired by the settlers were killed for food. I imagine they may have looked like your avatar.

 

I see it more as a natural flow of human development. Whether it's deliberate is secondary to whether it will be successful.

As you pointed out in the beginning, these traits and/or behaviors are seen in social mammals. I'd argue all social animals. What better example of altruism than a bee colony? Human DNA shares 44% of its genes with honey bees. I can't tie human altruism to bee altruism genetically - I doubt it's even possible - but it does pause one for thought.

As I touched on earlier, if altruism is good for the tribe, then it is good for humanity as we shrink our world and become closer and closer until we resemble one big tribe.

When we see a slave from the 19th century it invokes empathy, which comes from our altruistic nature, and trying to explain it leaves us dumbfounded. It makes no sense that one would feel emotion over the circumstances of another, unless there is a mechanism for this emotion, and that mechanism is DNA. We don't have to explain empathy to understand its function, and like absolutely everything else we do, think and feel, it starts as survival instinct.

Anyway, it's easy to see how altruism is a successful adaptation among social species. Even more basic and primitive are fish who care for their young and will defend them to the their death if necessary. Altruism is deeply rooted in our DNA. It would seem to follow that as we express altruism with expanding rights and privileges, and experienced highly accelerated population growth, longer life span, better health and increasing utility, we are operating from this adaptation as our survival instincts dictate. Simply put, we've grown past the practice of war and conquest, and learned that our chance of survival is greatest when more people are included, satisfied and at peace. It may look like we're being fools and thinking like children, and we may ultimately be, but for the moment, I see us not as honey bees giving our lives to defend the hive (the old era), but a tribe of bonobos sharing their food. We possess both the violence of chimpanzees and the calm of bonobos, and it remains to be seen which side will eventually win out, if either side ever does at all,.

 

Interesting, trouble we are neither chimps nor bonobos. At our best we are better than either at our worst we make chimps look like cuddle toys. We are the single best problem solvers the earth has ever seen which is almost entirely why we dominate the planet that and the fact That and we can make babies any time of the year.

Note what separates us from all other creatures is that we not only have the four basic needs if all animals, food clothing shelter and procreation but over the years we have added a plethora of wants as well. Note way too many of those wants we now see as needs.

 

Everything 'immoral' in our animal nature becomes more pronounced, as we break down or abandon survival tactics (aka, morals) in the belief we don't need them anymore.

Those who think a strong moral framework is offensive are either impossibly naive, or have sinister motives for precipitating the degradation of society.

 

Agree regarding altruism. It's innate in social mammals.

The problem with us is that we confuse altruism with morality. They're two different things, and in order for altruism to make any kind of difference, it must be underpinned by morality. Animals will exercise ocassional acts of altruism, but immediately return to lives heavily regulated by a survival code (ie, morals). It's this which allows for altruism in the first place. Species without the security of the social mammal, cannot afford altruism.

I would submit that we can't be 'satisfied and at peace', when we no longer practice the survival code of the social mammal. And it's the breaking down of that code which I believe to be wholly deliberate. Other cultures have always known it's a bad idea to remove consequences from actions, so any innocence on the part of our 'altruistic' Govts indicates inconceivable stupidity. It's not as though it's a mystery. After all, we tell our three year olds that if they don't pick up their toys there will be consequences, and they understand that perfectly well. The upshot is that I don't think either of us is comfortable thinking we're governed by people stupider than dirt, so we're left with accepting that it's deliberate.

 

Why?

 

Because if they aren't society and civilization collapse into anarchy and barbarism.

 

.

 

I don't think it's too subjective. My morality seems completely logically based but still not always easy to follow. But there are definitely shades of grey and harms to weigh. Putting somebody in prison for a long time for marijuana use or even selling it does way more harm than any marijuana use. Teens who have sex at 17 are more harmed by society's judgement than the sex itself in most cases and most 17 year olds can make that kind of choice. Our culture definitely has some immoral ideas on morality, including overusing prison time for non dangerous persons.

 

At least a solid third of that is self serving BS.

 

Serving not just myself but everybody. Prison time is detrimental to society if it's not for good reason. I don't use or sell marijuana. I don't even really drink alcohol because it would interfere with my caffeine habit. I only have sex with my wife. I find it weird that people think you have to directly benefit from a policy to think it's a good idea. You don't have to use drugs to advocate for their legalization, e.g.

 

Morality - there are things I will not do even to ensure my own survival.

Expediency - there is nothing I will not do to ensure my own survival.or at least a good time...

 

Anarchy and barbarism aren't anywhere near as likely as slow dissolution. Which is exactly what we have.

 

You're coming at this question from the wrong direction.

The high levels of incarceration aren't a result of morality, they're a result of the LACK of morality. There's a reason primary societies (and cultures which retain their social mammal codes) don't have prisons - it's because very very few are prepared to risk the wrath of the entire community - and likely expulsion - for misdemenours.

 

What else do you do when your 'pack' has far too many of what in nature would be very rare?

Our animal code doesn't allow for two out of ten failing to meet their obligations. Our systems collapse under the weight of the dead wood they were never intended to carry.

 

Exactly. Call it unnatural selection.

 

Prison is overused and sentences are too long. Many non-violent crimes would be better solved with fines that are paid over time. Prison is for keeping dangerous people away from the general society. In contrast, many offenses, such as selling marijuana, needn't be offenses at all. The United States has the highest known incarceration rate in the world. The problem is the approach from the criminal justice side, primarily.

 

That only works on the societal level

Obviously that logic falls apart on the individual level. Otherwise we would all have the same moral code