[kobe]

The problem comes when people who have no idea what evolution is and try to apply it to things it has nothing to do with. Natural selection cannot be applied to social structures because their tendency is to either go away and be replaced by something better or else completely disappear if they cannot resolve their inherent contradictions, or if they are destroyed by an outward threat.

So this idea that morality is being synthesized by the process of natural selection of ideas is absurd, because societies with perfectly reasonable moral ethics collapse, and societies with unsustainable ethics prosper for a time and then are destroyed when they can no longer impose their will. Or even an explanation as simple as the resources in that geographic location refuse to cooperate anymore even. Nothing a "morally good" society would be able to do in ancient times without freaking rain.

edit: My personal view is that morality tends to be, whatever values benefit the ruling class the most tend to be the ones that are touted. So the aristocracy would have said that values like loyalty, duty, honor, tradition, heritage should be emphasized. Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie would say that freedom, individual liberty, happiness, democracy, and self-determination should be the most important. Just looking at some of the messages that worker's regimes that are in theory meant to have the proletariat as the ruling class, you see values like collectivism, unity, industry, and anti-imperialism.

My point is that those are all fine values, whatever, I'm sure you have to consider all of those things as being at least seen by their espousers as positive values. As far as what I see the ethical framework of that is sprouting from? Little else except material circumstances leading you to believe in a certain framework that allows you to believe that your situation in life is either what it should be or not what it should be. If you think the former, you're likely to side with the ruling class. If you think the latter, you're likely to view those values as bullshit and substitute your own. In any case, none of it has any kind of objective basis in reality.

What does have objective basis is class conflict, and at current I see myself on one side of the conflict and the ruling class on the other. Lines will be drawn and there will be blood.

[Left Behind]

The problem comes when people who have no idea what evolution is and try to apply it to things it has nothing to do with. Natural selection cannot be applied to social structures because their tendency is to either go away and be replaced by something better or else completely disappear if they cannot resolve their inherent contradictions, or if they are destroyed by an outward threat.

Imagine a society with inhabitants which possessed no conscience. This society would inevitably collapse into a form of anarchic chaos, as there would be no way of building structures of trust. If I can't trust my family members, friends, or comrades, because in the past they have harmed me or other individuals which are close to them, then I will not be comfortable with forming allegiances with any of them. While intra-family feuds do occur, most of the time parents don't spontaneously kill their children. However, if I know that my comrades have cared for me in the past, then I am less likely to act aggressively towards them. In this manner, societies without the instincts necessary to support social cohesion fall, and those with the necessary instincts, succeed. While no society is morally "perfect" natural selection favours the development of certain behaviours.

Any individual who harms the society through "immoral" behaviour, is likely to be expelled from it.

It is not that society itself evolves, individuals present in a society in which social cohesion is possible are more likely to survive than those present in one in which it is not, to be present in such a society an individual needs to possess certain behaviours, therefore the individuals which are the most likely to survive are those which possess these behaviours. Therefore natural selection will favour the instinctual development of these behaviours.

The development of communities with social cohesion probably began small, with mutated instincts present in small familial groups allowing them to trust each other. These groups would, in a very mafioso fashion, be able to come to dominate those groups without social cohesion. Individuals would either be added to the group or die, and those without the necessary cooperative abilities would be expelled.

Societies like this are far less likely to be destroyed by outward threats than those with too much inner squabbling.

I do not believe it is possible to base an objective morality on the above argument, I simply think it a valid explanation for where our sense of morality comes from.

[Truth To Power]

I mean both. The justification for objectively correct moral beliefs is precisely that they will succeed biologically in the process of evolution, because there is nothing deeper, no higher authority, that one could refer to. Morality doesn't and can't mean anything else. That said, the problem of just how to derive objectively correct moral beliefs is far from being solved. One would have to be able to predict the evolutionary outcomes of acting on all sorts of moral beliefs, and while possible in theory, that is as yet far from possible in practice.

I like the analogy with diet: we can't really say for certain what the ideal human diet would be, and it's probably even different for different people, and different living conditions, climates, etc. It's a problem that is far beyond the capabilities of current scientific understanding. But we can say with pretty good certainty what kinds of diets are good candidates, and what kinds are better avoided. IMO morality is like that: maybe we can't say for certain that, e.g., polygamy, or smoking marijuana, is immoral; but we can be pretty sure stealing and murder are.

This is a naturalistic fallacy.

Nope. I'm not saying good and evolutionary success are the same thing, any more than weight and mass are the same thing. I am saying they have a definite logical relationship that can in theory be determined empirically. Moore was wrong about the relation of morality to nature, just as Hume was wrong about the related is-ought problem.

Just because there is no "higher authority" than something does not mean that that something is at all an authoritatve source of morality.

That's not the inference. There's no higher authority because that's where the very concept of morality comes from. It doesn't and can't mean anything else. Morality does not exist except as an evolved capacity of the human organism; it only exists because it serves -- or at least has served -- our evolutionary success, and it's therefore pointless and arbitrary to apply any other standard of judgment to it.

[Truth To Power]

I mean both. The justification for objectively correct moral beliefs is precisely that they will succeed biologically in the process of evolution, because there is nothing deeper, no higher authority, that one could refer to. Morality doesn't and can't mean anything else.

Not only is deriving morality from evolution impossible in practise, it is also impossible in theory.

Nope. It is the only defensible method of deriving it.

As Saeko has stated is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

Saeko is wrong, and Moore was wrong.

However it is also an example of the is/ought gap (or the fact/value gap).

And Hume was wrong. We don't have to derive ought from is, because we already have empirically derived premises that say what ought is. Ought and is are already present, together, in the same factual premises.

This is an unjustified conclusion because it is impossible to move from facts to values like you have done.

It's not impossible. I just did it.

We can use Darwinism as a model to predict which behaviours are beneficial for a species

The species is not the unit of evolution but its product.

Morality exists because of the tension between what is good for the individual's reproductive success and what is good for the society he resides in. For genetic reasons, societal failure and extinction is actually worse, in Darwinian terms, than individual failure and extinction. So to succeed in evolutionary terms, one must be a member of a successful society. But successful societies require their members to observe certain codes of conduct. Voila: morality.

and which are harmful, however we cannot move from the fact that x is beneficial to any moral judgement about x.

Refuted above.

Let me explain. Let us accept that unjustified murder is detrimental for a species to engage in. This is a fact. What is there in the nature of this fact that enables us to move to a value/moral judgement.

Its effect on society.

What is it for something to have a moral property (good or bad)?

Its effect on society.

What is the chain of reasoning which links two radically different varieties of proposition?

See above.

There is no logical justification that can be used to move from an is to an ought.

We don't have to, because we have facts about what ought is. So both terms are already present in the premises, so we just have to figure out their relationship.

To demonstrate this, imagine me having a chat with Bob, who thinks all good is derived from panda bears.

Bob simply does not understand what "good" means. Demonstration over.

Why is murder wrong? Because murder causes pain? Why is causing pain wrong? Because pandas don't like pain? Why is something disliked by pandas wrong? Because pandas are all-knowing? Why is something disliked by an all knowing being wrong?... Ad Infinitum

There is no possible way of justifying Bobs claim, or ending his chain of reasoning without circularity or un-justified assumptions. There is no way of justifying a value purely based on a fact.

That's your "demonstration"??

[ThereBeDragons]

Why would it be immoral to wipe out the species?

After all, it will die with the universe eventually anyway. Are we simply to prolong its existence for as long as possible?

[Truth To Power]

The problem comes when people who have no idea what evolution is and try to apply it to things it has nothing to do with.

Evolution has everything to do with morality.

Natural selection cannot be applied to social structures

Wrong.

because their tendency is to either go away and be replaced by something better or else completely disappear if they cannot resolve their inherent contradictions, or if they are destroyed by an outward threat.

Which is different from a biological organism how, exactly...?

So this idea that morality is being synthesized by the process of natural selection of ideas is absurd,

No, it's inescapable.

because societies with perfectly reasonable moral ethics collapse,

Animals with perfectly good genes die. So?

and societies with unsustainable ethics prosper for a time and then are destroyed when they can no longer impose their will.

Just like biological evolution, we find out what is fit by whether it survives.

Or even an explanation as simple as the resources in that geographic location refuse to cooperate anymore even. Nothing a "morally good" society would be able to do in ancient times without freaking rain.

But there was -- irrigation -- and they did do it.

[Left Behind]

That's not the inference. There's no higher authority because that's where the very concept of morality comes from. It doesn't and can't mean anything else. Morality does not exist except as an evolved capacity of the human organism; it only exists because it serves -- or at least has served -- our evolutionary success, and it's therefore pointless and arbitrary to apply any other standard of judgment to it.

Wrong.

When you say "morality does not exist except as an evolved capacity of the human organism", you really should be saying... "Our 'sense' of morality doesn't exist except as an evolved capacity of the human organism." A subjective sense of morality is the product of evolution, objective morality is not. Your equivocation of evolution producing a behavioural instinct which condemns and condones certain behaviours, and evolution producing morality is the chief error in your argument.

Humans have an evolved behavioural instinct which we call a conscience, we also have an evolved behavioural instinct which we call hunger. Just because we have an instinct which enforces a behaviour doesn't make that behaviour objectively valid, hamburgers are not objectively better or worse than bananas.

And Hume was wrong. We don't have to derive ought from is, because we already have empirically derived premises that say what ought is. Ought and is are already present, together, in the same factual premises.

No, you have provided an "empirical" argument as to where our subjective sense of ought comes from.

But successful societies require their members to observe certain codes of conduct. Voila: morality.

*Voila: a subjective sense of morality which is in no way shape or form objectively justified.

[Truth To Power]

That's not the inference. There's no higher authority because that's where the very concept of morality comes from. It doesn't and can't mean anything else. Morality does not exist except as an evolved capacity of the human organism; it only exists because it serves -- or at least has served -- our evolutionary success, and it's therefore pointless and arbitrary to apply any other standard of judgment to it.

Wrong.

I am of course objectively correct.

When you say "morality does not exist except as an evolved capacity of the human organism", you really should be saying... "Our 'sense' of morality doesn't exist except as an evolved capacity of the human organism."

No, I most certainly should not, because that is not what I meant.

A subjective sense of morality is the product of evolution, objective morality is not.

Yes, it is.

Your equivocation of evolution producing a behavioural instinct which condemns and condones certain behaviours, and evolution producing morality is the chief error in your argument.

It's not an equivocation, and it's not an error. It's a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. Morality DOES NOT EXIST except as an evolved human capacity and characteristic of human behavior.

Humans have an evolved behavioural instinct which we call a conscience,

Conscience is not morality.

we also have an evolved behavioural instinct which we call hunger. Just because we have an instinct which enforces a behaviour

Instinct motivates human behavior, but in most cases does not enforce it.

doesn't make that behaviour objectively valid,

Right: the objective validity is not determined by subjective appeal to instinct but by objective outcomes.

hamburgers are not objectively better or worse than bananas.

Depends on what sense of "better" you are using.

And Hume was wrong. We don't have to derive ought from is, because we already have empirically derived premises that say what ought is. Ought and is are already present, together, in the same factual premises.

No,

YES.

you have provided an "empirical" argument as to where our subjective sense of ought comes from.

No, I have stated a plain fact identifying where the CONCEPT of ought comes from.

But successful societies require their members to observe certain codes of conduct. Voila: morality.

*Voila: a subjective sense of morality which is in no way shape or form objectively justified.

Wrong again. It's objectively justified by the fact that it has displaced amorality by out-competing it. As morality comes from its effect on our evolutionary success and nothing else, that's the only possible basis for evaluating it.

[Zamuel]

So this idea that morality is being synthesized by the process of natural selection of ideas is absurd,

No, it's inescapable.

It's more than JUST natural selection. At the root "Morality" is an individual principle. It may derive from a vague understanding of a general concept, but it is refined by the individual to suit his personal environment. It's essential requirement is personal comfort. People cannot live (for long) within a morality they are uncomfortable with. Applicable morals get modified by the individual to suit (and usually to justify) his activities. This does generate social dichotomies like Christians owning slaves, etc. How you define "Morality" tells you a lot about yourself, if you look at it rather than hide from it.

Zam

[Left Behind]

It's objectively justified by the fact that it has displaced amorality by out-competing it. As morality comes from its effect on our evolutionary success and nothing else, that's the only possible basis for evaluating it.

It's not an equivocation, and it's not an error. It's a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. Morality DOES NOT EXIST except as an evolved human capacity and characteristic of human behaviour.

I agree that morality only exists as an innate human concept.
I agree that this concept is largely the result of natural selection.
I do not agree that these two statements justify an objective morality without the use of a rational/conditional ought.

If morality only exists as an evolved capacity of the human organism or as an innate concept, then it has a purely subjective existence, since it exists only within the realm of the human psyche.

However (and I think this may be something to which you are referring), since our moral capacity and moral behaviours have proven successful in the development of the human species and its individual organisms, then we rationally (i.e it is in our self interest) ought to behave “morally.” This can also be represented as a conditional ought, if we want to advance the species/its individuals then we ought to behave in a “moral” (moral meaning that behaviour which is endorsed by our innate capacity and has proved successful in the development of the human organism) way.

However, what if I am a purely egotistical individual and I know that if I behave immorally then I will advance my goals, then, rationally, I ought to behave “immorally.” What if I obtain pleasure from watching others suffer and have no care for my own welfare, then the same is true.

I am also genuinely curious as to your opinions regarding the form our evolved moral capacity, if it does not manifest itself as conscience then what does it appear as?

[Truth To Power]

It's objectively justified by the fact that it has displaced amorality by out-competing it. As morality comes from its effect on our evolutionary success and nothing else, that's the only possible basis for evaluating it.

It's not an equivocation, and it's not an error. It's a self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality. Morality DOES NOT EXIST except as an evolved human capacity and characteristic of human behaviour.

I agree that morality only exists as an innate human concept.
I agree that this concept is largely the result of natural selection.
I do not agree that these two statements justify an objective morality without the use of a rational/conditional ought.

Where did I say they would? Empirical science is full of conditionals. I'd be the first to stipulate that morality is not always the same, but depends on societal conditions. For example, polygyny is moral (and thus effectively universal) in hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding societies because the males with the best genetic make-up tend to be the most productive and to garner the most resources, and this yields a genetically fitter posterity. But in a settled agricultural society, resources go to those who own the land, independently of genetic fitness or individual merit or contribution of any kind, so polygyny tends to yield an inbred population where the best genes are not preferentially reproduced (see feudal Europe), and posterity is weakened. This altered economic condition consequently makes polygyny immoral, and settled agricultural (and later) societies have mostly banned it -- though this is a cultural evolution that takes centuries, minimum.

If morality only exists as an evolved capacity of the human organism or as an innate concept, then it has a purely subjective existence, since it exists only within the realm of the human psyche.

What? Our opposable thumbs also only exist as evolved qualities. That doesn't mean they have no objective existence.

However (and I think this may be something to which you are referring), since our moral capacity and moral behaviours have proven successful in the development of the human species and its individual organisms, then we rationally (i.e it is in our self interest) ought to behave “morally.”

It's even simpler than that. The concept of "ought" only exists because of that demonstrated evolutionary advantage. So there's no other basis for thinking about it.

This can also be represented as a conditional ought, if we want to advance the species/its individuals then we ought to behave in a “moral” (moral meaning that behaviour which is endorsed by our innate capacity and has proved successful in the development of the human organism) way.

No, it's quite different: what is moral can't actually be known in advance (the problem is too complicated), though we can make some good guesses. It depends on the contingent evolutionary outcomes of all the different possible moral ideals and associated behaviors. It's revealed empirically, experientially, like the value of any other evolving characteristic.

However, what if I am a purely egotistical individual and I know that if I behave immorally then I will advance my goals, then, rationally, I ought to behave “immorally.”

No, because immoral behavior jeopardizes your evolutionary future by weakening the society of which you are a member. A community can support a certain fraction of parasites and sociopaths, just as a population of songbirds can support a certain number of cuckoos, but they are ultimately at the mercy of being found out and exterminated by the moral majority.

What if I obtain pleasure from watching others suffer and have no care for my own welfare, then the same is true.

No, it has nothing to do with what you want or desire or get pleasure from. It's purely what will achieve the greatest reproductive advantage. Which we can hypothesize, but not actually know. In the end, evolutionary success is all that matters, because every other priority will eventually perish.

I am also genuinely curious as to your opinions regarding the form our evolved moral capacity, if it does not manifest itself as conscience then what does it appear as?

Mostly our sense of justice, which appears in early infancy: the sense of aversion to abrogation of not only one's own, but also others' rights. Alan Dershowitz explored this in his book, "Rights from Wrongs." He doesn't quite get the fundamentally biological character of morality, but it's a decent treatment of how our evolved moral capacity manifests itself.

[Left Behind]

Where did I say they would? Empirical science is full of conditionals. I'd be the first to stipulate that morality is not always the same, but depends on societal conditions.

You misunderstand me, by conditional ought I refer to this, meaning of the term, if you want to achieve goal x then you ought do y. However I do agree with you about the necessity of the other form of conditionality. I was not accusing you of proposing an absolutist moral system.

What? Our opposable thumbs also only exist as evolved qualities. That doesn't mean they have no objective existence.

Our innate moral capacity is not a physical object like the thumb, it is not present on the human body but in the human psyche. It is not subjective because it is an evolved quality it is subjective because it exists only in the mind, the subject.

It's even simpler than that. The concept of "ought" only exists because of that demonstrated evolutionary advantage. So there's no other basis for thinking about it.

This reminds me of the intentional fallacy (i'm not implying that you have committed the fallacy, i'm just using an analogy), which is an idea in aesthetics that it is wrong to judge a work purely based on its authors intentions. In the same way, why is it necessary for me to judge a concept purely based on its origins, evolutionary or otherwise?

However, what if I am a purely egotistical individual and I know that if I behave immorally then I will advance my goals, then, rationally, I ought to behave “immorally.”

These examples were only relevant if you accepted my claim that evolutionary morality required a conditional (using the meaning stated above) ought.

[Truth To Power]

Where did I say they would? Empirical science is full of conditionals. I'd be the first to stipulate that morality is not always the same, but depends on societal conditions.

You misunderstand me, by conditional ought I refer to this, meaning of the term, if you want to achieve goal x then you ought do y.

OK, but the goal is a given: evolutionary success through long-term survival, reproduction and proliferation. Nothing else matters, because morality will just change to reflect what works biologically.

What? Our opposable thumbs also only exist as evolved qualities. That doesn't mean they have no objective existence.

Our innate moral capacity is not a physical object like the thumb, it is not present on the human body but in the human psyche. It is not subjective because it is an evolved quality it is subjective because it exists only in the mind, the subject.

No, it is part of our genetic make-up. It just manifests itself in behavior rather than physiology.

In the same way, why is it necessary for me to judge a concept purely based on its origins, evolutionary or otherwise?

It's origins show what it means.

These examples were only relevant if you accepted my claim that evolutionary morality required a conditional (using the meaning stated above) ought.

Yes, but the if-clause of the conditional is already known: "If this genetic predisposition is to persist..."

[Left Behind]

OK, but the goal is a given: evolutionary success through long-term survival, reproduction and proliferation.

So it seems like you accept the need for a conditional but state that a particular goal is objectively necessary. This goal being

"If this genetic predisposition is to persist..."

.

To prove this point you need to establish that it is logically necessary to see the human capacity of morality in the context of its evolutionary origins.

It's origins show what it means.

I don't see how an evolutionary concept like morality can have any objective meaning whatsoever. We can't say that the purpose of morality is to cause a genetic predisposition to persist, since it is the result of unconscious processes. The fact that morality aids in the persistence of a genetic predisposition is the reason for its existence in a causal sense, but a reason in the sense of a purpose requires intention. This can be seen in the way the same question can mean two different things, why are we here? and why are we here? In the first case, why means cause so the question would be answered by the empirical sciences. In the second case why calls for a reason in the intentional sense, so it is supposedly answered by theology or cosmic mysticism. Because morality is the result of an un-intentional process it is purposeless and therefore meaningless.

Of course it can be argued that objective meaning cannot be derived even from intention at all. And this is all ignoring the fact that "meaning" is a rather ambiguous concept.

No, it is part of our genetic make-up. It just manifests itself in behavior rather than physiology.

We conceive of emotions as subjective even though their causes are largely genetic. There is a difference between the objective genetic code which causes emotions to assert themselves and the emotions themselves which manifest themselves in human consciousness and are therefore subjective. These emotions may give rise to behaviour but, unless you adopt a behaviourist understanding of the mind, emotional behaviour and emotions in themselves are distinct. It must be the case that the genome gives rise to the conscious moral feeling, "sense of justice" etc., which gives rise to behaviour.

[Truth To Power]

OK, but the goal is a given: evolutionary success through long-term survival, reproduction and proliferation.

So it seems like you accept the need for a conditional but state that a particular goal is objectively necessary. This goal being

"If this genetic predisposition is to persist..."

.

To prove this point you need to establish that it is logically necessary to see the human capacity of morality in the context of its evolutionary origins.

Anything else is just evasion or mysticism.

It's origins show what it means.

I don't see how an evolutionary concept like morality can have any objective meaning whatsoever.

Evolution is a process that occurs in objective physical reality. Everything it does is objective.

We can't say that the purpose of morality is to cause a genetic predisposition to persist, since it is the result of unconscious processes.

It's both cause and effect, rather than purpose.

The fact that morality aids in the persistence of a genetic predisposition is the reason for its existence in a causal sense, but a reason in the sense of a purpose requires intention.

Morality is not a person, to have purpose, and neither is it something created "on purpose" by any person or persons.

This can be seen in the way the same question can mean two different things, why are we here? and why are we here? In the first case, why means cause so the question would be answered by the empirical sciences. In the second case why calls for a reason in the intentional sense, so it is supposedly answered by theology or cosmic mysticism.

No, the answer lies in evolution. Theology and mysticism are the resort of the pre-scientific mind, which is not equipped to understand that we are the product of a blind natural process.

Because morality is the result of an un-intentional process it is purposeless and therefore meaningless.

Non sequitur. We are also the results of an unintentional process, and that doesn't make us purposeless or meaningless.

Of course it can be argued that objective meaning cannot be derived even from intention at all.

I don't know what you mean by "objective meaning."

No, it is part of our genetic make-up. It just manifests itself in behavior rather than physiology.

We conceive of emotions as subjective even though their causes are largely genetic. There is a difference between the objective genetic code which causes emotions to assert themselves and the emotions themselves which manifest themselves in human consciousness and are therefore subjective. These emotions may give rise to behaviour but, unless you adopt a behaviourist understanding of the mind, emotional behaviour and emotions in themselves are distinct. It must be the case that the genome gives rise to the conscious moral feeling, "sense of justice" etc., which gives rise to behaviour.

Emotions are subjective because they are a private experience. Morality is inherently social.

[Left Behind]

I don't know what you mean by "objective meaning."

By objective meaning I mean meaning which is not determined by subjectivity and is an objective property of an object.

Anything else is just evasion or mysticism.

I'm a moral anti-realist .

And the very fact that morality is not defined by the supernatural, does not mean that it needs to be defined by the natural, it could simply be meaningless.

Evolution is a process that occurs in objective physical reality. Everything it does is objective.

Evolution itself is obviously an objective process, I never denied this. And everything it does may be objective, however this does not mean that everything it produces is objective, evolution has produced emotion, private experience and a host of other subjective phenomena.

It's both cause and effect, rather than purpose.

If you acknowledge that evolution does not define the purpose of morality then it cannot give it any meaning.

Morality is not a person, to have purpose, and neither is it something created "on purpose" by any person or persons.

Did I ever call morality a person, did I ever say it was created on purpose?

Non sequitur. We are also the results of an unintentional process, and that doesn't make us purposeless or meaningless.

Yes it does. It means we have no objective purpose or meaning (as defined above), we can have subjective meaning defined by ourselves but the only possible source of objective meaning is intention (and even intention as a source is debatable) or perhaps consensus in the case of words in a language. The only way evolution could provide morality with objective meaning would be if it were conscious and created it with a particular purpose in mind, however this is obviously not the case.

Emotions are subjective because they are a private experience. Morality is inherently social.

By this you either mean morality is influenced by social factors which could be said of emotion, or you mean that morality is a fundamentally social behaviour. To which I would respond by saying that morality is an innate and private experience which causes social behaviour. In the same way that sadness is the private experience which causes the social behaviour of crying and anger is the private experience which causes the social behaviour of violence. All social behaviours have private causes.

[Truth To Power]

I don't know what you mean by "objective meaning."

By objective meaning I mean meaning which is not determined by subjectivity and is an objective property of an object.

How can meaning be an objective property? Meaning only exists in consciousness.

Anything else is just evasion or mysticism.

And the very fact that morality is not defined by the supernatural, does not mean that it needs to be defined by the natural, it could simply be meaningless.

It's self-evidently not meaningless.

Evolution is a process that occurs in objective physical reality. Everything it does is objective.

Evolution itself is obviously an objective process, I never denied this. And everything it does may be objective, however this does not mean that everything it produces is objective, evolution has produced emotion, private experience and a host of other subjective phenomena.

Those are objective phenomena with subjective effects.

It's both cause and effect, rather than purpose.

If you acknowledge that evolution does not define the purpose of morality then it cannot give it any meaning.

Sure it can. A rainbow has no purpose, but people have been giving it meaning for millennia.

Morality is not a person, to have purpose, and neither is it something created "on purpose" by any person or persons.

Did I ever call morality a person, did I ever say it was created on purpose?

You intimated that you thought of it that way when you claimed its meaning had to derive from purpose.

Non sequitur. We are also the results of an unintentional process, and that doesn't make us purposeless or meaningless.

Yes it does.

No, it does not.

It means we have no objective purpose or meaning (as defined above),

That definition is problematic.

we can have subjective meaning defined by ourselves but the only possible source of objective meaning is intention

This does not seem to relate to anything I think of as meaning.

(and even intention as a source is debatable) or perhaps consensus in the case of words in a language.

Duh. It's a social construct, like morality.

The only way evolution could provide morality with objective meaning would be if it were conscious and created it with a particular purpose in mind, however this is obviously not the case.

Non sequitur.

Emotions are subjective because they are a private experience. Morality is inherently social.

By this you either mean morality is influenced by social factors which could be said of emotion, or you mean that morality is a fundamentally social behaviour. To which I would respond by saying that morality is an innate and private experience which causes social behaviour.

Morality has private and subjective dimensions, but that does not mean is has ONLY private and subjective dimensions.

In the same way that sadness is the private experience which causes the social behaviour of crying

?? People cry alone, too, you know.

and anger is the private experience which causes the social behaviour of violence. All social behaviours have private causes.

No, that's just emotivism, and uninformative. Morality has both social causes and social effects, and exists only for the sake of the latter.