[Zamuel]

I can't even argue against what you said, it was completely empty of meaning. You in one short post called everyone who doesn't agree with you blind, and the called the truth obvious.

So then, you agree there -IS- Objective Morality ? ala the OP ...

Zam

[mikema63]

No, though it would certainly be convinient if there were.

[Zamuel]

No, though it would certainly be convinient if there were.

We're Americans ... Convenience is a Moral Imperative !

Zam

[kobe]

My personal belief is that there is an objective morality. I do not know of anything to justify it philosophically, but I do believe that it exists.

In terms of practical or social reality, there is no objective morality. It's whatever you can get away with and whatever your society allows you to do. Plus society will often denounce things on an individual level and then allow those "immoral acts" if it will further the interests of the ruling elite. In the name of war there's probably very little morality that can be found there. Truly the worst acts have been justified by reasonably people acting on their supposedly objective moral principles. So it's hard to tell in practical truth.

[jango1985]

My personal belief is that there is an objective morality. I do not know of anything to justify it philosophically, but I do believe that it exists.

In terms of practical or social reality, there is no objective morality. It's whatever you can get away with and whatever your society allows you to do. Plus society will often denounce things on an individual level and then allow those "immoral acts" if it will further the interests of the ruling elite. In the name of war there's probably very little morality that can be found there. Truly the worst acts have been justified by reasonably people acting on their supposedly objective moral principles. So it's hard to tell in practical truth.

Everyone thinks when they make a choice it was their best choice, nobody is out there trying to ruin their plans and goals. The person under duress thinks given the option of further pain or harm they are making "their" best choice given their options. The person who gives to charity thinks they are going to get some or may get some sort of karmic or emotional reward, also it has indirect benefits, for example if I turn my back on the needy everyone else will feel the world is a little bit less forgiving and stress out over potential failure and poverty more, "it will make the world feel like a cold and harsh place." Their is also genetic benefits to helping other people because next generation your kids are only half you and now half someone else, and it just keeps getting worse by a factor of two every generation, as well as the selection pool you and your kids choose from is dependent on society. If a kid grows up in a world with everyone in it for themselves everyone is desperate, that kid is living among predators and might even be one of them. You can literally measure this stuff and write equations describing, it's sociology.

The word and concept of justice didn't just magically appear, it was created with the intent of social engineering, same with all the rest but this was sociology before sociology was a word but old world knowledge hasn't yet become integrated with new world science. Sexism has long term genetic repercussions, rape has genetic repercussions, sexual promiscuity pretty much creates STD's or at least makes them much much more dangerous. Lying pretty much makes a scientific body of knowledge impossible, communication is such a huge part of human interaction it also makes society itself impossible. Usually people think of small amounts of lying when they think of that, but there is a saying "if I am lying I am dying." Think if witness's lie during court, judges lie, court reporters lie, doctors lie; this single persecuted idea could collapse all of civilization. I have to trust that I am really a descendant of apes, before that that rodents, and before that fish, for I all I know is that this is revenge of the nerds for being picked on in high school. Convincing the uneducated who take everything science claims on blind faith that they had rodents for ancestors. I take through trust that science is mostly accurate and was created in good faith and I assume that people out there would tell me if it was discovered to be false by those who actually pursue those studies far enough to actually understand and know proof of. Now that there is so much science I couldn't verify all of it with lifetimes let alone enough to just verify the stuff i am going to be trusting through the use of technology. The premise that science is verifiable and has proof only means something if its within my means to learn and understand the proof, might even need capital to get an electron microscope, it might as well be magic considering how much the average person is every going to verify.

[kobe]

Well, it may seem objective that the world is a better place with some form of morality, but the morality itself does not seem to have an objective basis.

As far as the misguided diatribe about evolution: rodents and humans come from the same ancestor, which is a little like saying the cells in your body and germs come from the same ancestor. Yes, they may not appear to be similar if you only compare them to each other, but when you compare them to all the Earth and everything in it then rodents and humans are clearly of the same nature. Learning why evolution is real is a simple matter for anyone who does not already have preconceived notions of creation. A theory does not become a theory if it is not able to be observed and falsified.

[jango1985]

Well, it may seem objective that the world is a better place with some form of morality, but the morality itself does not seem to have an objective basis.

As far as the misguided diatribe about evolution: rodents and humans come from the same ancestor, which is a little like saying the cells in your body and germs come from the same ancestor. Yes, they may not appear to be similar if you only compare them to each other, but when you compare them to all the Earth and everything in it then rodents and humans are clearly of the same nature. Learning why evolution is real is a simple matter for anyone who does not already have preconceived notions of creation. A theory does not become a theory if it is not able to be observed and falsified.

So science has to be falsified?

You need to read more closely what I wrote, I never claimed it was false, I never claimed science wasn't accurate. My diatribe about science is more about logic, I am lead to believe scientists respect that highly...

I am don't disbelieve in evolution I am saying that science has become something that is only really verifiable by the educated and even then only in their niche so while technically that might all be provable I don't have enough brainpower, the time, the resources to actually do more than trust that it is right. Sciences success in finding the right answers being able to explain and prove them and use them has made it huge but now it is no longer possible to actually read more than a small portion of the proofs. Its not about right and wrong its just that the premise that all science is provable only helps if I could hold them to that but it is so huge I cannot and simple have to trust other peoples integrity. It is simply my opinion that science is too many fields, too much, too high skilled labor for me as a layperson to every be treated to more than a sample of that vaunted proof. So in terms of the non experts its kind of going to be about trust, who do they trust more their priests or their scientists if we are going to get into theologically.

[Truth To Power]

My personal belief is that there is an objective morality. I do not know of anything to justify it philosophically, but I do believe that it exists.

I can tell you how it is justified philosophically: morality has arisen through evolution, and therefore has no meaning outside the biological context of a tool to enhance our evolutionary success, survival and reproduction.

In terms of practical or social reality, there is no objective morality.

It is more that there is no ONE objective morality that is correct in all societal circumstances.

Consider polygamy. In the context of our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors, polygamy -- polygyny -- resulted in preferential success for the genes of fittest, most productive males, who were able to garner the most resources for survival. Thus, polygyny was and has been considered moral in effectively all such societies. Once a society progresses to settled agriculture, all production above subsistence is taken by the landowner, so access to material resources no longer depends on individual contribution or merit, and instead depends solely on who owns the land. In those circumstances, polygyny no longer improves the gene pool, and may even contribute to genetic deterioration, so such societies increasingly move away from polygyny to monogamy (obviously, it takes centuries to millennia to make such momentous cultural shifts). Again, we can see that agricultural and industrial societies have consequently abandoned polygyny, and it is now considered immoral in nearly all advanced countries.

It's whatever you can get away with and whatever your society allows you to do.

That's rather uninformative. The what and why are precisely the matters of interest.

Plus society will often denounce things on an individual level and then allow those "immoral acts" if it will further the interests of the ruling elite.

But there is often a tension between what the powerful can get away with and what people actually consider moral.

Truly the worst acts have been justified by reasonably people acting on their supposedly objective moral principles.

Or as Voltaire put it, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." We see this in every act of terror and large-scale evil. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is by absurdities (i.e., in practice, lies).

[ComradeTim]

I can tell you how it is justified philosophically: morality has arisen through evolution, and therefore has no meaning outside the biological context of a tool to enhance our evolutionary success, survival and reproduction.

An objective morality with no metaphysical ramifications, that always works well. None of them ever holds up to the "what you do in the dark" test and thus fails miserably.

[Truth To Power]

I can tell you how it is justified philosophically: morality has arisen through evolution, and therefore has no meaning outside the biological context of a tool to enhance our evolutionary success, survival and reproduction.

An objective morality with no metaphysical ramifications, that always works well.

It's the only kind that is reality-based.

None of them ever holds up to the "what you do in the dark" test and thus fails miserably.

Sorry, Comrade, but you'll have to do a little better than that. Claiming none can hold up to the test is quite different from actually showing that a particular one can't.

[kobe]

I can tell you how it is justified philosophically: morality has arisen through evolution, and therefore has no meaning outside the biological context of a tool to enhance our evolutionary success, survival and reproduction.

The fact that you think evolutionary success and reproduction are separate things shows me that you have a strange idea of evolution. Morality arose through social construct, not evolution. Socially positive behavior may lead to more successful reproductive strategies, but so too does socially negative behavior in some instances. No one thinks it's socially positive for a man to kidnap and brutally rape his wife, but in "nature" this would be a viable reproductive strategy.

The problem is basically as ComradeTim makes it. You have no mechanism through which to enforce this morality save for humans, and no mechanism through which to verify its objectivity as moral ideas. Thus it is not objective.

It is more that there is no ONE objective morality that is correct in all societal circumstances.

More than one objective truth? Objectivity is singular in nature.

Consider polygamy. In the context of our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors, polygamy -- polygyny -- resulted in preferential success for the genes of fittest, most productive males, who were able to garner the most resources for survival. Thus, polygyny was and has been considered moral in effectively all such societies. Once a society progresses to settled agriculture, all production above subsistence is taken by the landowner, so access to material resources no longer depends on individual contribution or merit, and instead depends solely on who owns the land. In those circumstances, polygyny no longer improves the gene pool, and may even contribute to genetic deterioration, so such societies increasingly move away from polygyny to monogamy (obviously, it takes centuries to millennia to make such momentous cultural shifts). Again, we can see that agricultural and industrial societies have consequently abandoned polygyny, and it is now considered immoral in nearly all advanced countries.

This is why we need anthropologists. To be blunt, it is ignorant to say that hunter-gatherers and nomads were polygamous. A large number were monogamous. As far as why we outlawed polygamy in "advanced countries", a lot of that has to do with our treatment of women and our religion (Christianity). Not too clear if agriculture has anything to do with becoming monogamous. I have never heard that theory. If anything, the establishment of property leads to more of an ability to practice polygamy, as social stratification leads to the unequal distribution of resources that allows for polygamy to exist. Because remember, unequal distribution of resources is the true basis of polygamy.

That's rather uninformative. The what and why are precisely the matters of interest.

The what and the why are dependent on your society, so impossible to answer with a general rule.

But there is often a tension between what the powerful can get away with and what people actually consider moral.

Often the people will accept the morality of the elite as long as they feel that they can't do anything to change it.

Or as Voltaire put it, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." We see this in every act of terror and large-scale evil. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is by absurdities (i.e., in practice, lies).

What seems absurd to you may not be absurd to those that believe it. Besides, he also said, "a witty saying proves nothing".

[ComradeTim]

Sorry, Comrade, but you'll have to do a little better than that. Claiming none can hold up to the test is quite different from actually showing that a particular one can't.

Kobe goes a long way to showing it, but if you need an actual example: Under this evolutionary morality of yours, what personal benefit is there to me to avoid carrying out an immoral (socially disruptive) but pleasuresome act like rape, theft or murder if I can be reasonably sure that I be not found out? Say I come across a winsome traveller in the night with expensive and vital medicines for curing the sick children in the next town. I'm going the other way and cannot be reasonably brought to justice. Without any idea of heaven or hell, I have no incentive to act rightly save for some easily overidable conscientious urges.

[Truth To Power]

I can tell you how it is justified philosophically: morality has arisen through evolution, and therefore has no meaning outside the biological context of a tool to enhance our evolutionary success, survival and reproduction.

The fact that you think evolutionary success and reproduction are separate things shows me that you have a strange idea of evolution.

No, it is an accurate idea. The difference between reproduction and evolutionary success is the difference between having children who survive to reproduce and having genes that become more predominant in the population. Two very different things.

Morality arose through social construct, not evolution.

False. Our moral capacity itself is indisputably a result of biological evolution, not a social construct.

Socially positive behavior may lead to more successful reproductive strategies, but so too does socially negative behavior in some instances.

Which is exactly why morality is not a social construct: it plays out in reproductive success, which does not always align with socially positive behavior.

No one thinks it's socially positive for a man to kidnap and brutally rape his wife, but in "nature" this would be a viable reproductive strategy.

You are factually incorrect. In some societies, marriage by kidnap and rape has been recognized as a morally appropriate way to go about starting a family.

The problem is basically as ComradeTim makes it. You have no mechanism through which to enforce this morality save for humans,

Morality doesn't apply to anything but humans.

and no mechanism through which to verify its objectivity as moral ideas.

Wrong. The mechanism is evolution: moral ideals that characterize the most competitive, successful societies will tend to become more predominant.

Thus it is not objective.

It is, because it is a physical process playing out in the arena of objective physical reality.

It is more that there is no ONE objective morality that is correct in all societal circumstances.

More than one objective truth?

Of course. What is true in the heart of Africa may not be true in London.

Objectivity is singular in nature.

No, it is as varied as objective physical reality.

Consider polygamy. In the context of our hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors, polygamy -- polygyny -- resulted in preferential success for the genes of fittest, most productive males, who were able to garner the most resources for survival. Thus, polygyny was and has been considered moral in effectively all such societies. Once a society progresses to settled agriculture, all production above subsistence is taken by the landowner, so access to material resources no longer depends on individual contribution or merit, and instead depends solely on who owns the land. In those circumstances, polygyny no longer improves the gene pool, and may even contribute to genetic deterioration, so such societies increasingly move away from polygyny to monogamy (obviously, it takes centuries to millennia to make such momentous cultural shifts). Again, we can see that agricultural and industrial societies have consequently abandoned polygyny, and it is now considered immoral in nearly all advanced countries.

This is why we need anthropologists. To be blunt, it is ignorant to say that hunter-gatherers and nomads were polygamous.

No it's not. It's a fact.

A large number were monogamous.

Nope. Wrong. Almost all have been polygynous, and those that haven't have usually been influenced by more powerful, settled societies where polygyny is maladaptive.

As far as why we outlawed polygamy in "advanced countries", a lot of that has to do with our treatment of women and our religion (Christianity).

You are incorrect. Christianity is silent on the subject (it does forbid divorce), and almost all the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs were polygynous.

Not too clear if agriculture has anything to do with becoming monogamous. I have never heard that theory.

You have now.

If anything, the establishment of property leads to more of an ability to practice polygamy, as social stratification leads to the unequal distribution of resources that allows for polygamy to exist.

Yes, but it screws up society, weakening it in the competition with rival societies, and thus becomes objectively immoral in that kind of society.

Because remember, unequal distribution of resources is the true basis of polygamy.

That depends on what you mean by "resources." The true basis of polygyny is that there have never been enough good men to go around.

That's rather uninformative. The what and why are precisely the matters of interest.

The what and the why are dependent on your society, so impossible to answer with a general rule.

The general rule is that objective morality is determined by societal competitive success, which depends on societal circumstances.

But there is often a tension between what the powerful can get away with and what people actually consider moral.

Often the people will accept the morality of the elite as long as they feel that they can't do anything to change it.

But often they won't. It's clear that although the people of ancient Rome were powerless to do anything about the behavior of the early emperors, they knew damn well it was immoral, and were appalled by it.

Or as Voltaire put it, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." We see this in every act of terror and large-scale evil. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is by absurdities (i.e., in practice, lies).

What seems absurd to you may not be absurd to those that believe it.

Of course. But they are just wrong. The fact that a child might believe in leprechauns, or an adult in Allah, doesn't make those notions any less false and absurd.

Besides, he also said, "a witty saying proves nothing".

It might not prove anything, but it can provide clarity and illumination.

Sorry, Comrade, but you'll have to do a little better than that. Claiming none can hold up to the test is quite different from actually showing that a particular one can't.

Kobe goes a long way to showing it, but if you need an actual example: Under this evolutionary morality of yours, what personal benefit is there to me to avoid carrying out an immoral (socially disruptive) but pleasuresome act like rape, theft or murder if I can be reasonably sure that I be not found out?

The benefit is to your genes: by not weakening your society by raping, stealing or murdering, you help proliferate your genes not only in the persons of your children, but all your kin living in your society. That is the whole point of objective morality: it is a far bigger calamity for your genes if your society fails and is extinguished than if you personally are. So the objectively moral is whatever makes society stronger and better able to out-compete rival societies. That will depend on societal conditions.

Say I come across a winsome traveller in the night with expensive and vital medicines for curing the sick children in the next town. I'm going the other way and cannot be reasonably brought to justice. Without any idea of heaven or hell, I have no incentive to act rightly save for some easily overidable conscientious urges.

Those conscience urges are objective morality -- the long-term interest of your genes -- poking through your narrow, short-term self interest. That is exactly the point of objective morality: the (genetic) kind of people who would take advantage of the winsome traveller's vulnerability do not constitute or sustain healthy, successful societies, so those genes ultimately fail and are extinguished.

[jango1985]

I agree with the evolutionary idea but I am a bit uncertain of how all encompass that term is, mostly if that included sentient conclusion of choices as a form of evolution that then get attempted. One thing I don't like about some descriptions of all encompassing evolution is that we are innately stupid and it was purely random. If all the ones who randomly picked the fatal choices are gone then smart is a very subjective description only describing those who aren't dead yet or were able to breed. Sadness implies the existence of happyness and vice versa, people with nothing don't feel pain, so for people who think evolution is a too dark just go through a description like that and invert it. You can say it as people are happier more if they don't murder each other, religions knew this at least a bit before someone coined the word science and made it their new temple.

Which I am not exactly disagreeing with but the idea that are brains are just pain induced knee jerks is a rather like saying humans are multidimensional rocks rolling down a multidimensional hill. A contradiction to this analysis is that then religious belief is also a form of that and people keep rolling down that hill over and over again, if our minds are purely a product of the universe something as huge as an idea like God would have to fit in it and in be in it. If your limited to and stuck in the universe your mind can only have ideas that exist within it, god is not the only big idea. There is a purpose to having a scientific field called metaphysics isn't just to appease the unbelievers. Science is such a all encompassing idea that you can't really say its the one right way because really its many different opinions who often disagree with each other. When people act like its a one god style belief system, it more like a few big gods, some average gods; and many small gods. Science is literally decided to claim every field, every way of doing things, every description of things, and they do not always invent this sometimes they steal peoples version and rebrand it. When you don't say anything your definitely never wrong, and when you correct your mistakes and learn from others but shamelessly without paying your dues "science" is obviously going to always be the "most right." Science as a description is about as definitive as phrases and words like; "the right way," "you know, "totally," or "you know that thing we did at that place with that stuff that time while that thing happened."

A large number were monogamous.

Nope. Wrong. Almost all have been polygynous, and those that haven't have usually been influenced by more powerful, settled societies where polygyny is maladaptive.

What neither of you mentioned is that the male to female ratio is not always 1:1 in the United states for example where it is considered maladaptive it's 51% females to 49 % males with a population of 320 million, that makes 6,400,000 "extra" females. We do have some promiscuity here which starts to sound less like the disease and more like the real norm.

[ComradeTim]

TTP, your arguments make some sense in of themselves, however my problem is they leave me cold (and I suspect others would feel the same way). You may be right as to the fundamental basis of morality, but instinct cries out for a more personal explanation. Perhaps that too is evolutionarily derived.

[Truth To Power]

TTP, your arguments make some sense in of themselves, however my problem is they leave me cold (and I suspect others would feel the same way). You may be right as to the fundamental basis of morality, but instinct cries out for a more personal explanation. Perhaps that too is evolutionarily derived.

Of course. I never promised you any warm and fuzzies, just the truth. It's cold, hard, pitiless, and more than a little scary if you are used to relying on the loving, bearded grandpa in the clouds (Yahweh, God, Allah or Marx, take your pick) to look after you.

What neither of you mentioned is that the male to female ratio is not always 1:1 in the United states for example where it is considered maladaptive it's 51% females to 49 % males with a population of 320 million, that makes 6,400,000 "extra" females. We do have some promiscuity here which starts to sound less like the disease and more like the real norm.

The ratio of marriageable-age males and females has often been wildly skewed in favor of males, especially after major wars. They say that in Germany and Japan in the late 40s, any presentable man could be effectively polygynous with no difficulty. It was far more extreme in Paraguay at one point in the late 19th C: defeat in war and then a guerrilla war had so depleted the adult male population that women outnumbered men by 7 to 1, and polygyny, though still illegal, became the de facto norm.

[Truth To Power]

Oooops...

[kobe]

No, it is an accurate idea. The difference between reproduction and evolutionary success is the difference between having children who survive to reproduce and having genes that become more predominant in the population. Two very different things.

Right. Which is called reproductive success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success

Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that they too can pass on those genes. This is not solely the number of offspring produced by an individual, but also, as Ronald Fisher outlined in 1915 the probable reproductive success of those offspring, making mate choice (a form of sexual selection) an important factor in this success,[1] making biological fitness a key element in the theories of natural selection and evolution.

Which just means what I said. Evolutionary success and reproductive success are one in the same. The fact that you think that they are not brings to question your knowledge of evolution in general, which makes me doubt your more outlandish claims about human evolution.

False. Our moral capacity itself is indisputably a result of biological evolution, not a social construct.

Why? There are many social animals out there. What is unique about humans is our syntax, not our cooperation.

Which is exactly why morality is not a social construct: it plays out in reproductive success, which does not always align with socially positive behavior.

I'm sorry, but we're not talking about morality, we're talking about objective morality.

You are factually incorrect. In some societies, marriage by kidnap and rape has been recognized as a morally appropriate way to go about starting a family.

Yes, I know. And in most other societies it is not. Therefor not objective.

Morality doesn't apply to anything but humans.

Therefor it is cultural, and not objective.

Wrong. The mechanism is evolution: moral ideals that characterize the most competitive, successful societies will tend to become more predominant.

"societies"

cultural.

evolution applies to everything that reproduces.

It is, because it is a physical process playing out in the arena of objective physical reality.

Yeah, so is culture. That doesn't make it objective.

Of course. What is true in the heart of Africa may not be true in London.

That theory is literally called moral relativism.

No, it is as varied as objective physical reality.

Variance in physical reality is not analogous to variance in objectivity. For instance, there is variance between your beliefs and mine. That means that objectively, our beliefs vary, but that does not mean that objectively, we are both correct. It could mean that we both have a point, as in all societies that succeed do so based on some aspect of their culture that prevents them from being self-destructive, but that doesn't mean that their beliefs were objective, that doesn't mean that they were behaving morally in an objective sense, and that doesn't mean that they were behaving optimally.

No it's not. It's a fact.

To clarify I meant to say "all polygamous". Obviously many practiced polygamy to some extent.

Nope. Wrong. Almost all have been polygynous, and those that haven't have usually been influenced by more powerful, settled societies where polygyny is maladaptive.

Look, you are claiming that polygyny was a fundamental aspect of hunter-gathering, but that's just not true. Yeah, maybe some high status males were allowed multiple brides, but high status males by definition are the extremely small minority. I hope you're not counting nomads of the Middle East, that had the ability to make commerce with and contact with city-states for most of their recorded history. Because if so that would be a disingenuous thing to do.

Anyway, it doesn't take much poking around to find that my professors were indeed not lying to me to pass their PC agendas.

As expected from previous genetic studies, the mitochondrial DNA phylogenies generated here (Figure 1) show the deepest divergences in Africa, first by San speakers (Ju/’hoansi, or !Kung San, and Khwe) and African ‘‘Pygmies’’, followed by the Hadza of Tanzania. The next clade to split off includes Australian Aborigines, hunter-gatherers on the Indian subcontinent (Dravidian language family), and the ‘‘Negritos’’ of Southeast Asia. The final clade to diverge includes several northern latitude hunter- gatherers (Inuit-Aleut, Nganasan, and Evenki). These phylogenetic trees are generally congruent with more extensive studies of global genetic variation [17–19].

The reconstruction of human marriage practices for ancestral humans show several consistent patterns using Bayesian, maximum likelihood, and parsimony methods (Table 1). The reconstruction of low levels of polygyny in early humans is straightforward because high levels of polygyny for hunter- gatherers are only found in Australian Aborigines and are mostly low elsewhere (most exceptions are some New World foragers that are not in the phylogenetic analysis). Low levels of polygyny and low reproductive skew among ancestral humans are consistent with human morphology and behavior (i.e., moderate sperm counts [20] and testicular size [21]; facultative paternal investment [22]) and the general decline in sexual dimorphism beginning at least with early Homo [23].

The existence of brideprice, brideservice, or both is the most likely ancestral state for humans according to all 3 reconstruction methodologies. Some type of exchange of goods or labor between the families of marital partners, not including token brideprice, is found in 80% of Apostolou’s [11] full sample. Brideprice/service is recorded for most hunter-gatherers in the reduced sample with the exception of the Mikea (brideprice is token only), Batek, and Andaman Islanders (Table 2). Given that brideservice and brideprice are often crucial economic components of regulated mate exchange, a deep history of these practices may in and of itself indicate a deep history of regulated marriage.

You are incorrect. Christianity is silent on the subject (it does forbid divorce), and almost all the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs were polygynous.

Not the people that spread and practiced Christianity, though (the Romans). What the customs of the Jews at the time of the events of the New Testament is immaterial. The spread of Christianity throughout Europe led to the fall of polygamy throughout Europe. That's because certainly the various pagan groups of Europe would have practiced it for higher status males.

You have now.

Well, you haven't supported your theory very well.

Yes, but it screws up society, weakening it in the competition with rival societies, and thus becomes objectively immoral in that kind of society.

Or nah. Why nah? Because objectively nah. See, I can throw around the word meaninglessly as well.

That depends on what you mean by "resources." The true basis of polygyny is that there have never been enough good men to go around.

Sounds edgy, but means nothing.

The general rule is that objective morality is determined by societal competitive success, which depends on societal circumstances.

That fails to meet any standard of objectivity or morality.

But often they won't. It's clear that although the people of ancient Rome were powerless to do anything about the behavior of the early emperors, they knew damn well it was immoral, and were appalled by it.

Who are you to call it immoral? You just said that might makes right when it comes to objective morality.

Of course. But they are just wrong. The fact that a child might believe in leprechauns, or an adult in Allah, doesn't make those notions any less false and absurd.

Islam is an example of a society that is objectively moral by your standards.

Your beliefs are the basis for your own delusions, not everyone else's.

TTP, your arguments make some sense in of themselves, however my problem is they leave me cold (and I suspect others would feel the same way). You may be right as to the fundamental basis of morality, but instinct cries out for a more personal explanation. Perhaps that too is evolutionarily derived.

His arguments sound like his pet theories based on his personal shadows on the wall in the cave. Absolutely nothing objective about the morality he claims. He is making a great case for cultural relativism though.

[jango1985]

The path this discussion took is an example of subjective viewpoints, objective is if we someday all reached agreed on a single conclusion. Science is not immune to this simple description of objective either, it gets caught believing nonsense a bit which until it gets caught is considered objective truth.


Truth to Powers wording was a little off putting for me too, I would prefer the word competition but I don't just mean competition as in the harshest forms. You have 40 dollars you need some food, you go to the grocery store see the meal you wanted is sold out, you see something a bit unhealthy for you that you like and also see something healthy for you that you don't like. Inside you there is turmoil and a conflict between two motivations struggling dominance usually one will win or you are surprised and the a grocer comes in restocked what you came for right as you were about to give in to the tasty but unhealthy treat. But Like I said previously competition is only ever described using negative words like pain. You can just as easily say if you picked the healthy meal you would get dividends of happyness long term if you picked the taste meal you would get short term small happyness.

Absolutely competition has more than just two predators trying to kill each other in it, and our brains use it each time we reach a conclusion. We verse the two or more ideas against each other to decide which one we should choose, this is just human nature, everyone has been doing it all the time since forever. Wording it like great murder happens when competition goes wrong is the exact same in a way as saying someone went crazy and murdered someone. I am pretty sure I just described the entire human race as fascists just now but hey I don't have a problem with fascists so this doesn't hurt me. You have a friend and they want go to the movies but you want to go to have a big dinner and your deadlocked neither giving in over this world changing event(it changed a little). Then you find out that this is the last showing of that movie and you wanted to see it also, your resolve starts to weaken and you start losing ground and eventually your friend exploits your lack of resolve and you chose the movie. This was indirect competition between you and your friend over resources, and your friend won, was this a horrible thing(depends on the food)?

Some forms of competition beat out randomly trying to stab and club each other to death and took over through being more effective at competing and when it becomes an all out death match things that made us better, smarter, faster, wealthy help us win. Therefore bully children doesn't make me a very feared and idealized predator, just makes everyone else worry about their children and think I am pathetic and reprehensible, then they assume they will out compete me to force me to not hurt kids. If I went around forcing martial artists to say I beat them in a fight using a machine gun and friends with machine guns, everyone is going to think something similar, unless there was a good reason for it. If I with no formal training went around and did the same thing but with just my hands and feet in a fair fight, people would think I was amazing. Two of these competitions were meaningless and so one sided as to be not even worth the question of a competition.

[Truth To Power]

The path this discussion took is an example of subjective viewpoints, objective is if we someday all reached agreed on a single conclusion.

No. Objectivity is not about a consensus of all, but evidence that is in principle available to all.

Science is not immune to this simple description of objective either, it gets caught believing nonsense a bit which until it gets caught is considered objective truth.

That misunderstands the scientific method, which does not purport to PRESENT objective truth but only to SEEK it. Real empirical scientists -- i.e., not AGW climate "scientists" -- always hold their views tentatively. The exception is mathematicians, who do offer objective certainty.

Some forms of competition beat out randomly trying to stab and club each other to death and took over through being more effective at competing and when it becomes an all out death match things that made us better, smarter, faster, wealthy help us win.

We have to be clear on the difference between competition (vying to surpass rivals), conflict (pursuing interests incompatible with those of rivals), and combat (trying to harm rivals).

No, it is an accurate idea. The difference between reproduction and evolutionary success is the difference between having children who survive to reproduce and having genes that become more predominant in the population. Two very different things.

Right. Which is called reproductive success.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success

No, you are wrong. Reproductive success REQUIRES YOU TO REPRODUCE. Evolutionary success does not. It only requires proliferation of your GENES, which are also present in your kin. Some people call evolutionary success "inclusive fitness," but IMO that term is also an imperfect measure of evolutionary success.

Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that they too can pass on those genes. This is not solely the number of offspring produced by an individual, but also, as Ronald Fisher outlined in 1915 the probable reproductive success of those offspring, making mate choice (a form of sexual selection) an important factor in this success,[1] making biological fitness a key element in the theories of natural selection and evolution.

Which just means what I said.

But not what I said.

GET IT??

Evolutionary success and reproductive success are one in the same.

Wrong. See above. Dying without posterity is reproductive failure, but it is not necessarily evolutionary failure, if you have helped your kin to reproduce, making living copies of your genes more numerous. This is the key fact underlying objective morality.

The fact that you think that they are not brings to question your knowledge of evolution in general, which makes me doubt your more outlandish claims about human evolution.

No, you are just objectively wrong about what I said, and I am objectively right. You'll find that happens a lot, as long as you presume to dispute with me.

False. Our moral capacity itself is indisputably a result of biological evolution, not a social construct.

Why?

Because it is present in infants too young to have been socially educated, and because it is highly genetically determined (i.e., identical twins reared apart are more similar in their moral views than fraternal twins reared together).

There are many social animals out there.

And they have their social instincts. We have morality because our behavior is too complex for instinct to handle.

What is unique about humans is our syntax, not our cooperation.

Wrong again. There are many unique things about humans, the relevant one being our moral sense: the fact that A cares about what B does to C even when there is no apparent effect on A. No other animal exhibits that predisposition in more than weak and rudimentary forms.

Which is exactly why morality is not a social construct: it plays out in reproductive success, which does not always align with socially positive behavior.

I'm sorry, but we're not talking about morality, we're talking about objective morality.

Huh? We can't talk about objective morality without talking about morality. Duh.

Actual morality as practiced in society is not objective, but we have to include it in the analysis.

You are factually incorrect. In some societies, marriage by kidnap and rape has been recognized as a morally appropriate way to go about starting a family.

Yes, I know. And in most other societies it is not. Therefor not objective.

I didn't say it was objectively moral, it was YOU who claimed it was objectively wrong.

Morality doesn't apply to anything but humans.

Therefor it is cultural, and not objective.

<sigh> Wrong again. Arms-length economic exchange also doesn't apply to anything but humans; but as it is present in all cultures, like language, it is objectively part of our nature, and not just cultural.

Wrong. The mechanism is evolution: moral ideals that characterize the most competitive, successful societies will tend to become more predominant.

"societies"

cultural.

Wrong AGAIN. Ants also have societies, but not culture.

evolution applies to everything that reproduces.

True, but only human beings have morality. Other social animals have instincts.

It is, because it is a physical process playing out in the arena of objective physical reality.

Yeah, so is culture. That doesn't make it objective.

Culture is objective in the sense that it exists physically. It is also evolving.

Of course. What is true in the heart of Africa may not be true in London.

That theory is literally called moral relativism.

It's a fact, not a theory; and I was not talking about what is considered moral in Africa and London, but what is true about human behavior and relationships, and the implications thereof for evolutionary success. That's why polygyny might be objectively moral in tribal Africa, but not in London.

No, it is as varied as objective physical reality.

Variance in physical reality is not analogous to variance in objectivity.

It is not merely analogous to, but actually IS variance in objectivity.

For instance, there is variance between your beliefs and mine. That means that objectively, our beliefs vary, but that does not mean that objectively, we are both correct. It could mean that we both have a point, as in all societies that succeed do so based on some aspect of their culture that prevents them from being self-destructive, but that doesn't mean that their beliefs were objective, that doesn't mean that they were behaving morally in an objective sense, and that doesn't mean that they were behaving optimally.

True. The fact that there is an objective morality doesn't mean we know, or can easily find out, what it is. I return again to the analogy with diet: we don't know what the objectively optimum diet is, it is certainly different for different people and different circumstnaces, and we can't even say how one would go about discovering what it might be. But we nevertheless recognize that there is an objectively optimal diet, and can even say in general terms what it is probably like for almost everyone. The same goes for morality, and the epistemological constraint is similar: we could only know by trying out all the plausible candidates and seeing what happens in all circumstances, an obvious impossibility.

No it's not. It's a fact.

To clarify I meant to say "all polygamous". Obviously many practiced polygamy to some extent.

Most did, to a great extent.

Nope. Wrong. Almost all have been polygynous, and those that haven't have usually been influenced by more powerful, settled societies where polygyny is maladaptive.

Look, you are claiming that polygyny was a fundamental aspect of hunter-gathering, but that's just not true.

I don't know about "fundamental," but it was certainly far more common than monogamy.

Yeah, maybe some high status males were allowed multiple brides, but high status males by definition are the extremely small minority.

? OBVIOUSLY the majority of men can't be polygynous as long as women don't substantially outnumber them...

I hope you're not counting nomads of the Middle East, that had the ability to make commerce with and contact with city-states for most of their recorded history. Because if so that would be a disingenuous thing to do.

Garbage. I said pre-agricultural, and that includes both nomads and hunter-gatherers.

Anyway, it doesn't take much poking around to find that my professors were indeed not lying to me to pass their PC agendas.

As expected from previous genetic studies, the mitochondrial DNA phylogenies generated here (Figure 1) show the deepest divergences in Africa, first by San speakers (Ju/’hoansi, or !Kung San, and Khwe) and African ‘‘Pygmies’’, followed by the Hadza of Tanzania. The next clade to split off includes Australian Aborigines, hunter-gatherers on the Indian subcontinent (Dravidian language family), and the ‘‘Negritos’’ of Southeast Asia. The final clade to diverge includes several northern latitude hunter- gatherers (Inuit-Aleut, Nganasan, and Evenki). These phylogenetic trees are generally congruent with more extensive studies of global genetic variation [17–19].

The reconstruction of human marriage practices for ancestral humans show several consistent patterns using Bayesian, maximum likelihood, and parsimony methods (Table 1). The reconstruction of low levels of polygyny in early humans is straightforward because high levels of polygyny for hunter- gatherers are only found in Australian Aborigines and are mostly low elsewhere (most exceptions are some New World foragers that are not in the phylogenetic analysis). Low levels of polygyny and low reproductive skew among ancestral humans are consistent with human morphology and behavior (i.e., moderate sperm counts [20] and testicular size [21]; facultative paternal investment [22]) and the general decline in sexual dimorphism beginning at least with early Homo [23].

The existence of brideprice, brideservice, or both is the most likely ancestral state for humans according to all 3 reconstruction methodologies. Some type of exchange of goods or labor between the families of marital partners, not including token brideprice, is found in 80% of Apostolou’s [11] full sample. Brideprice/service is recorded for most hunter-gatherers in the reduced sample with the exception of the Mikea (brideprice is token only), Batek, and Andaman Islanders (Table 2). Given that brideservice and brideprice are often crucial economic components of regulated mate exchange, a deep history of these practices may in and of itself indicate a deep history of regulated marriage.

Too bad you couldn't offer any evidence against anything I said.

You are incorrect. Christianity is silent on the subject (it does forbid divorce), and almost all the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs were polygynous.

Not the people that spread and practiced Christianity, though (the Romans).

Irrelevant. The Romans (like the Greeks before them) were monogamous before they became Christian.

What the customs of the Jews at the time of the events of the New Testament is immaterial. The spread of Christianity throughout Europe led to the fall of polygamy throughout Europe.

Nonsense. It was Roman conquest, Roman law and settled agriculture. Christianity was just along for the ride.

That's because certainly the various pagan groups of Europe would have practiced it for higher status males.

Polygyny was routine in pre-Roman (especially pre-agricultural) Europe, of course.

You have now.

Well, you haven't supported your theory very well.

I think I have.

Yes, but it screws up society, weakening it in the competition with rival societies, and thus becomes objectively immoral in that kind of society.

Or nah. Why nah? Because objectively nah. See, I can throw around the word meaninglessly as well.

Non-response noted.

That depends on what you mean by "resources." The true basis of polygyny is that there have never been enough good men to go around.

Sounds edgy, but means nothing.

Rubbish. It means exactly what it says. Or if you want it spelled out, the proportion of women fit to be wives and mothers is higher than the proportion of men fit to be husbands and fathers. Every woman knows this instinctively, which is why they are so ruthlessly competitive.

The general rule is that objective morality is determined by societal competitive success, which depends on societal circumstances.

That fails to meet any standard of objectivity or morality.

In your factually incorrect opinion.

But often they won't. It's clear that although the people of ancient Rome were powerless to do anything about the behavior of the early emperors, they knew damn well it was immoral, and were appalled by it.

Who are you to call it immoral?

I'm the guy who is willing to know the relevant facts.

You just said that might makes right when it comes to objective morality.

I said no such thing. I said ultimate evolutionary success makes right -- and that any other standard is by definition futile and doomed to perish.

Of course. But they are just wrong. The fact that a child might believe in leprechauns, or an adult in Allah, doesn't make those notions any less false and absurd.

Islam is an example of a society that is objectively moral by your standards. :lol:

Not at all. The jury is still out on Islam, as it is on all the rest. It may indeed turn out that of all the societies now extant, Islam will be the survivor. It is certainly single-minded enough in its intention to kill or convert (and out-reproduce) everyone else.

Your beliefs are the basis for your own delusions, not everyone else's.

Belief is irrelevant to objective fact.

TTP, your arguments make some sense in of themselves, however my problem is they leave me cold (and I suspect others would feel the same way). You may be right as to the fundamental basis of morality, but instinct cries out for a more personal explanation. Perhaps that too is evolutionarily derived.

His arguments sound like his pet theories based on his personal shadows on the wall in the cave. Absolutely nothing objective about the morality he claims.

Refuted above. I haven't claimed that any specific morality is objective, just that there must be such a thing, like the optimum diet.

He is making a great case for cultural relativism though.

Yes, but it's a very different kind of cultural relativism from what you mean: Darwinistic cultural relativism.