First of all, by asking "why you are wrong" implies that 1) I have already said you are wrong (which I didn't) and 2) that maybe you are not sure about your viewpoint (but it only sounds so)! And certainly I didn't even thought for a moment that you were attacking me or criticized me! This is what a philosophical discussion is about: presenting viewpoints and supporting them with sound arguments or examples.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2021, 10:11 am
Morals are our idea of correct behavior, yes? We choose to say that X is good behaviour and Y is not, and morals are the consensus view of the community as regards such things, yes? I don't mean that such things are decided at random, only that they are decided; chosen, not forced upon us by Nature or the Universe.
Survival, on the other hand, isn't really a choice, it is a necessity. We do what we must, not what we choose, to survive. Survival overrides such trivia as morals, doesn't it? If there is no other food available, we eat each other, even though we would normally consider cannibalism to be morally wrong. Survival trumps morals every time. So, if this is so, survival is no foundation for an objective morality, is it?
By this reasoning, I conclude that there is no objective aspect to morals, none at all.
I'm not attacking you, or your opinions, when I ask this, it's a genuine question: can you explain why I am wrong?
Re: "Survival ... is a necessity". Certainly, but there are innumerable levels and kinds of survival, quantitative and qualitative, material and immaterial in nature. That's why I talked abut "enhancing survival". If I do something that helps you in achieving some purpose, I help your survival. And the opposite, if I deprive you of or reduce something that you need to achieve that purpose, I act against your survival. This is correct and logical, isn't it? We can then call this an objective viewpoint. On the condition, of course, that what you want to achieve as well as my helping you in that, really helps you, enhances your survival. E.g. if my son has math problems to solve for his homework and I "help" him by solving them for him, I don't really help him, do I? Helping him would be to assist him in solving them himself. So, we are talking about the end result.
On the same line, stealing from someone is reducing his survival and is considered bad, wrong, immoral, unethical etc. in all the societies. So we can talk about an objective moral. There's no room for relativity or subjectivity here, is there? It is not a matter of opinion, is it?
(Note: Immaterial survival? Yes, of course. I survive better when I am happy than when I feel miserable. I survive better when I am valued and respected as a person, my work and my actions are acknowledged, I get a respectable post in a company, and so one.)
I hope that all this covers your question and then more!