Reply To The Anonymous Atheist

Someone left a longer comment on the Atheists and Morality post so I thought I would reply in a post rather than having it get buried in an old comment thread. Unfortunately he didn't leave a name but here it goes.

Be careful. Proposing that morality is the result of evolution is not the same as proposing that morality is not objective. Evolution is not a random process, and neither is morality. If morality evolved, it was to help in the preservation and proliferation of a population.

But in this case where is morality located? It is in human DNA. So how can something in human DNA be objective? You could say it is objective because it would be common to almost all humans. But if humans did not exist then rightness or wrongness would not exist.

Morality must be systematic then, because a morality which impedes the preservation and proliferation of a population is rejected. If you look at it that way, then the "big contributor" to morality was the environment, or, if you wish, the universe. 

So suppose that is how we got human morality. How does that impact future moral analysis? We accept that morality has helped the human species get here. But who says the same moral principles will continue to be helpful? Maybe the path to progress is to do some things our morality recoils at. So even if genocide feels morally repugnant that does not mean we should not hold our noses and do it anyway. So anything becomes OK if you can call it progress.

You could say that, looking between different universes or environments, that the resulting differences prove a subjective morality. 

You could say it. It does not follow logically. All it proves is a subjective element. That is a subjective perception of an objective reality or perhaps some types of morality might be subjective and others might be objective. Morality in different times and cultures are more remarkable for their sameness then their difference. 

However, this would be forgetting that morality still was the result of the preservation and proliferation of a population. It doesn't get more complex when you look at it from the perspective of the individual. He or she wishes to preserve and proliferate his or herself, either genetically or ideologically. It's a psychological phenomena. 

Certainly this is a benefit of morality that could be explained by evolution. Moral people tend to raise more children and better children. But we also have the strong temptation toward immoral behavior. If evolution was the driver would not the superior behavior become automatic? We have the desire to do good yet the inability to do it. So we feel guilty. Where is the evolutionary advantage in that? If the greater good we desire does not exist it does seem had to understand how evolution could have programmed in such a destructive lie.

Of course, once the population is stabilized, we can look at other biological triggers to make up a system of morality. Our biology tells us to be as happy as we can for as long as we can while minimizing suffering as much as we can without sacrificing our individual or group preservation or proliferative abilities. No more rape, torture, etc. Summarizing: we evolve based on the environment; our morality results from our abilities to adapt to that environment; once adapted, we fulfill higher needs which have also been molded from the environment. Environment was there every step of the way, and it is the source of morality.

I am not sure where you are going here. If the population has stabilized then we are not seeing natural selection? Nobody has an issue with the body wanting to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. But what about higher moral principles? No torture or rape within the community you care about but what about outside it? If not, why not?

You talk about morality like it is an established fact. The truth is it is always a struggle. We struggle individually and we struggle as a society and as soon as we stop we commit evils we never dreamed we were capable of. Saying the environment shapes our morality seems to leave the will out of it. That is not human experience. We create a moral environment.

If you must ask the question, "If morality comes from Karma, where does Karma come from?" you are setting yourself up for infinite regress.

So you are saying don't ask that question? Interesting. I thought atheists were all about asking the hard questions. The infinite regress can be broken if there is an uncaused cause.  If you are saying Karma is not caused then you have such an uncased cause. If Karma is not it then does logic require one does exists? I am not afraid of that question.

In light of that realization, I've devised an interesting thought experiment for you. God is a simple construct, and the downfall of proposing that morality comes from such an entity is the result of God's simplicity. God is typically proposed to be omnipotent. What differs between individuals is their answer to the question, "Can God defy logic?" Can God, for example, make a three-sided square? If the answer is yes, then your God is beyond rational discussion. If the answer is no, then your God is bound by logic, as well. This would not prove that He is not omnipotent, but it would suggest that if He formulated morality, He had to reference logic, as well.

God cannot defy logic. He is Reason. He cannot go against Himself. He did formulate morality and He did so logically. It feels like you think there is some sort of problem here. Not sure what it would be.

It makes sense. If you're God, and wish to minimize suffering are you going to permit rape? No. Why? Because it causes suffering.

You already lost me. I would not agree that God wishes to minimize suffering. At least that is not His highest goal. He allows suffering for many reasons. You list a common one. He gives us the choice to rape or not to rape. But He leaves the suffering that flows from rape largely in place. Then He tells us not to rape. But the choice is still ours. The key is to realize He cannot take a negative consequence from a choice without also removing the positive consequence. That is if we could not choose to rape then we could not choose to respect a woman's right to say No. The choice would be made for us by God.

Now, you could propose that God could make an entirely new (bizarre) universe, where suffering did not result from rape. However, establishing the anti-rape moral code in this universe would not follow, because it would not functionally minimize suffering. It would be arbitrary.

I agree that this is bizarre.

God's decisions on morality are bound by the logic of the universe which He creates; and the previous commenters propose that morality comes from the logic inherent in the universe. How do we thank a God for a moral code which we could have derived ourselves from the use of our own logical abilities?

Just because morality is logical it does not follow that we don't need any help in knowing what is moral and doing what is moral. God's wisdom is higher than ours. So morality has no contradictions but it does have mysteries. Some parts are just too deep for us to fully understand. So God does help us out and we can and should be grateful.

The matter of following the moral code is obviously much harder. Knowing lying is wrong is relatively easy compared with being a truth teller. So we need God's help there to. Again, avoiding short term suffering is not God's central goal.

The former posters' arguments are sound. God isn't necessary for morality. 

Not sure which former poster you are agreeing with. My post was not trying to defend the proposition that God is necessary for morality. Just that objective morality requires some sort of super natural thing to exist. Morality that is purely natural is completely subjective and therefore not very effective.