Reply to Gertie:
To clarify, no that isn't Churchland's argument, it's my shorthand for how people came to think of morality. Many people did come to believe what came to be called 'morality' has some objective existence, and/or is God-given. But now people like Churchland are helping us to understand that 'survival of the fittest' evolution can result in altruism, for example. No gods required.
Thanks for your clarification; I’m fine with that.
-- Updated 18 Feb 2017, 12:53 to add the following --
Reply to Eduk:
Iapetus I would say it was moral to read other people's posts in a forum with a principal of charity. In this manner you will more likely understand the other person's post. Which will in turn lead to a better discussion for all involved.
Eduk, I honestly don’t know what to make of your post. Are you complaining about the way in which I respond to a post or are you simply trying to give an example of ‘moral’? In what way do I lack ‘charity’? I try to remain civil at all times and I certainly do not troll. I go to very considerable lengths to try to understand what people are saying and, if their meaning is not clear, then I ask questions, as I have done with you. I believe that approach is well within what is appropriate in a philosophy forum. If, however, I do not receive answers to my questions or responses to my points, then it is certainly difficult to maintain a meaningful conversation. I have given you the charity of trying to respond to every point you have made and, if you think I have missed any, then please let me know. You have not done likewise.
You initiated the conversation with the question,
“In terms of subjectivity and objectivity when does something become objective?” Since I had already explained my position about ‘objective’ morality, I restated it and added further explanation, stressing the importance of definitions. You have not responded.
You then asked,
“I would conjecture that most humans have the same (or nearly the same) morals”. I disagreed and explained at some length. I asked in return,
"What definition of ‘morals’ leads you to this conjecture?" You have not answered.
You then offered this;
“My basic point is that is all/most humans have morals which are the same/very similar than could this be said to be an objective morality?” Since I had already explained why I do not accept your premise, I could have left it at that. But I didn’t. I said,
“Please give me an example of an objective morality so that we can explore the idea”. You haven’t given me one. Instead, I offered a possibility of one; rejection of killing babies and I wrote a paragraph about it. I refered back to the possibility that everybody might agree. But, to my way of thinking, this would still not make it objective. I asked,
“is the motive irrelevant?” I could have gone into more detail at that point but I wanted to wait for your response. You didn’t offer one.
You mentioned the significance of evolution and I wrote a paragraph to explain that I thought there was more to it than that. No response.
You asked about possible confusion between emotion and morals and I said it depended on the definitions. You haven’t offered any.
In your next post you returned to the thought experiment but gave no consideration to my previous answer, when I introduced the idea of motivation. So I gave you a different type of answer,
“If all humans had pointy ears and long whiskers, would that make them cats?”. I think it is a philosophically valid alternative. You have not responded.
You then asked,
“But for something to be moral, by definition doesn't it have be good for individuals and people as a whole?” I explained that this could not work as a definition because it employed a value judgement without explanation. You have not responded.
Then three more statements about morals without any attempt to define what you meant. I responded to each of them.
I am more than happy to pursue the concept of objective morality but, without feedback, I don’t know what more you can expect.
I have granted you the courtesy of reading your posts and responding in detail. You have not done likewise. I can live with that but I do bridle a little if the suggestion then is that I am being uncharitable. If you think I am being unreasonable, then please explain how and why.
Someone else could say that their moral outlook would be to read posts from the point of view of a troll. So how do we work out which one is actually moral? Or more moral? We consider the reward that both parties have had and the contentment and stimulation both parties have had and the corresponding effects on quality of life. An engaged charitably minded individual will have a more rewarding happier more productive life than a troll the vast majority of the time. I say vast majority because perverse people are born, immoral people are born. And there is of course bad luck such as car accidents and deseases.
I am sorry but I have difficulty in making sense of this. Something about the morality of reading posts, about trolls not leading productive lives and immoral people being born. If you have a specific point to make, some rephrasing would certainly help.