Richard Dawkins says:

[hellheaven1987]

So why abortion is only morally corrected to Richard Dawkins when the fetus has some diseases that can cause it disable for life after being born?

[Kyriakos]

No we're not. You want to talk terminology about what Dawkins talked, you can talk in the same definitions he did, and not once did he start talking about children.

Dawkins specifically says (even there in the bit quoted in the start of this thread) that he wants to increase happiness (sic) in the world, and DS people in his view ultimately bring down happiness (either for themselves, or those having to care from them). It seems you did not bother to read your hero's statements posted in the OP of this thread. He very clearly, no doubt about that, brings childen into this, and even calls DS adults as perpetually having the needs of children.
Your attempt to make this into another debate on fetuses is itself off-topic here, for the fetus only belongs in this debate due to the practical reason that you cannot legally abort (in that case kill) a child, but you can legally abort a fetus.

[Gaidin]

Dawkins specifically says (even there in the bit quoted in the start of this thread) that he wants to increase happiness (sic) in the world, and DS people in his view ultimately bring down happiness (either for themselves, or those having to care from them). It seems you did not bother to read your hero's statements posted in the OP of this thread. He very clearly, no doubt about that, brings childen into this, and even calls DS adults as perpetually having the needs of children.
Your attempt to make this into another debate on fetuses is itself off-topic here, for the fetus only belongs in this debate due to the practical reason that you cannot legally abort (in that case kill) a child, but you can legally abort a fetus.

Talking abortion is about fetuses. Doing something relatively similar to a DS child would be, well, murder. I've yet to see Dawkins suggest something. The first words out of ones mouth saying 'the choice is yours' but then suggesting abortion but going nowhere near murder would suggest children aren't anywhere near the equation of his statement. Unless you want to read something into it to spite yourself. Or you are starting to think children can be legally aborted. What country do you live in that they can legally be aborted?

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

He defines his moral argument relative to this: "if your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering". He often makes the mistake of using the term "moral" in the way that someone who believes in objective morality would, which weakens his arguments based on his other positions. However in this case he was careful not to do so, he defines his position relative to a goal.

I do not mean to question the epistemology of his morality, I freely admit that it arises as part of a social function, the regulation of human society - the Social Contract - depends on it. Thus if he takes a Utilitarian origin for how his morality arose that is not my objection, my objection lies to the universalism which is used.

However he does mention a goal, setting it quite clearly in the social construct paradigm.

If one accepts, as I do that morality arises due to human behaviour, human social constructs, then they must also accept that it cannot be universal. How would one make a universal morality? Biology seems logical. Let us try to make a morality on the subject Dawkins puts forth based on a pure biological view point - biology suggests one of the prime motives for human existance is reproduction hence anything that inhibits this reproduction can be seen as counter to our purpose - thus a biological morality seems to support the Pro-live stance. But wait! What if the unborn child has a disabling condition? Let us again take a biological standpoint - does it inhibit the future generation reproductive capabilities? If so abort - if not do not.
As we can see such a cold biological take on morality does not seem to lend much comfort or asuringly true assertions - the reason? Because all human morality necessarily stems from human society. To try to reason it from the point of biology seems rather pointless - we must first take up an assumption about the intrinsic point of human life to get a moral result, in my case I chose reproduction as an example, but the prime motive of human life is not necessarily reproduction. What of the other pointers the body leaves as to its purpose - lungs to breath - is that the true motive of human life? Eyes to see - is that the purpose?
So Ideology is the root - as cold biology does not cut it. Here I say; if all morality arises from human society - social constucts used to regulate society, than no argument is superior to another as all arose from the same proccess of human existance. All regulate society in a certain way and arose due to paticular circumstances, there can be no correct morality. Moral argments in a society represent social contradictions. But on this point I conceede "I once was lost but now I’m found, twas blind but now I see." To assert one moral as superior to another - although it cannot be true, has an essential nominal use in human society. I regulates social conflicts. Thus Dawkins has not proved it to be 'immoral' and cannot do so if ideology is the spring of all morality - but there is a social function in him doing so. One group asserts an action as a universal good, the other a universal evil. The argument regulates society or at least exposes contradictions inside it.

[Mangalore]

...

First of all testing for Down Syndrome did not come out yesterday, it has been here for a while. Many women, including those who are pro-choice choose to keep a child with a disability.

Correct quantifier would be "some".

Also despite what you may think of yourself, and the numerous wondrous gifts ascribed to you at birth for us non superhumans not a one of us is "just living". We all rely on the modern social and often medical systems in order to support our potential just as those who are disabled need it.

...

100 years ago I'd have been dead at birth so I don't think you argue from the right assumptions.

[Denny Crane!]

How does this work?

Abortion is wrong for downs syndrome because its nazi eugenics. Well then so it is for Spinal Bifida, anencephaly, and other of other extremely painful and life shortening disease that western medicine has long recommended an abortion instead of putting a child through it.

So apparently the nazis won and eugenics is here. But why on earth is that a bad thing? And I'm with others who have pointed out that abortion is not the same or equal or relevant to whether or not people still here are happy or should be alive.

[Himster]

I do not mean to question the epistemology of his morality, I freely admit that it arises as part of a social function, the regulation of human society - the Social Contract - depends on it. Thus if he takes a Utilitarian origin for how his morality arose that is not my objection, my objection lies to the universalism which is used.

If one accepts, as I do that morality arises due to human behaviour, human social constructs, then they must also accept that it cannot be universal.

There are aspects of human instinctual morals that are universal to healthy humans, or at least apparently universal.
This is the base of morals, all morals.

How would one make a universal morality? Biology seems logical. Let us try to make a morality on the subject Dawkins puts forth based on a pure biological view point - biology suggests one of the prime motives for human existance is reproduction hence anything that inhibits this reproduction can be seen as counter to our purpose - thus a biological morality seems to support the Pro-live stance. But wait! What if the unborn child has a disabling condition? Let us again take a biological standpoint - does it inhibit the future generation reproductive capabilities? If so abort - if not do not.

The modern human is simultaneously (and arguably paradoxically) both collectivist and individualist. The needs/desires of the many does not necessarily outweigh the needs/desires of the individual, nor does the needs/desires of the individual necessarily outweigh the needs/desires of the many.
If morality were universal in the absolutist sense there would be no debate on morality, we would just know and that would be that, game over, time to stop thinking. However this is not the case. Morality is simultaneously subjective and objective, it is simultaneously individualist and collectivist, the society that best moderates these seemingly contradictory aspects will be the more successful society.

As we can see such a cold biological take on morality does not seem to lend much comfort or asuringly true assertions - the reason? Because all human morality necessarily stems from human society.

It's debatable whether all human morality comes from human society. Even feral children (deprived of human society for a variety of reasons, language, the capacity for abstract thought etc.) display basic, instinctual morality like sharing food, protecting what he/she views as his/her tribe/clan/family etc.

To try to reason it from the point of biology seems rather pointless - we must first take up an assumption about the intrinsic point of human life to get a moral result, in my case I chose reproduction as an example, but the prime motive of human life is not necessarily reproduction. What of the other pointers the body leaves as to its purpose - lungs to breath - is that the true motive of human life? Eyes to see - is that the purpose?
So Ideology is the root - as cold biology does not cut it. Here I say; if all morality arises from human society - social constucts used to regulate society, than no argument is superior to another as all arose from the same proccess of human existance. All regulate society in a certain way and arose due to paticular circumstances, there can be no correct morality. Moral argments in a society represent social contradictions. But on this point I conceede "I once was lost but now I’m found, twas blind but now I see." To assert one moral as superior to another - although it cannot be true, has an essential nominal use in human society. I regulates social conflicts. Thus Dawkins has not proved it to be 'immoral' and cannot do so if ideology is the spring of all morality - but there is a social function in him doing so. One group asserts an action as a universal good, the other a universal evil. The argument regulates society or at least exposes contradictions inside it.

Not all societies are equal, it follows that not all moral systems are equal.
Morality coming from biology in my view is a non-contentious position, we all share basic instinctual morals, this is self evident, it offers us no absolutist moral system, but that's fine: the desire for an absolutist moral system is something that we are imbued with from social/cultural/historical/artificial pressures. Where contention enters the equation is when ideology is added onto this intrinstic, instinctual moral root, the over-suppression of certain instincts, or under-oppression of certain instincts causes problems, empirical problems that can be observed and measured with contentious criteria: be it theistic moral systems, utilitarian moral systems etc. etc. The claims for "this massive list of moral assertions is universal because "science/god" states it to be so based on this observation/book/treatise/logical-argument"........ it's just: that's nice, non objective, it's lovely/can be lovely, but that's about it.

It's quite easy to deduce using reductionist reasoning where the source of morality is, but but that then undermines assertions of moral "truths", not only contemporary assertions, but all assertions throughout history. It's far easier to destroy than it is to create. What do you think: would society be better off if we simply pretended that moral assertions are true and ignore our biological/neurological/anthropological findings?

[Kyriakos]

How does this work?

Abortion is wrong for downs syndrome because its nazi eugenics. Well then so it is for Spinal Bifida, anencephaly, and other of other extremely painful and life shortening disease that western medicine has long recommended an abortion instead of putting a child through it.

So apparently the nazis won and eugenics is here. But why on earth is that a bad thing? And I'm with others who have pointed out that abortion is not the same or equal or relevant to whether or not people still here are happy or should be alive.

This isn't a topic about abortion. Obviously every person is free to decide what to do there (within the legal limits/timeframe), and they should be free as well. The topic is about Dawkins posting yet another dumb view of his according to which he has something non-platitude like to say on this subject as well. People with DS very clearly have a handicap, but a person with a very high intelligence may easily come to regard people with 'average' intelligence as also having a horrible handicap. It doesn't follow that it is a good idea to advertise how some "ethics" or "logic" is the one to lead to what parents choose in the case of any abortion, let alone DS cases or other such handicaps.

In short: Dawkins has nothing of importance to say and that is why he once again got himself in a lousy trolling debate from both sides, cause he is a troll as well.

[Himster]

How does this work?

Abortion is wrong for downs syndrome because its nazi eugenics. Well then so it is for Spinal Bifida, anencephaly, and other of other extremely painful and life shortening disease that western medicine has long recommended an abortion instead of putting a child through it.

So apparently the nazis won and eugenics is here. But why on earth is that a bad thing? And I'm with others who have pointed out that abortion is not the same or equal or relevant to whether or not people still here are happy or should be alive.

Morality is like art: it's about drawing a line somewhere (whose position is based on various schools of thought) and hoping it works out okay.
If It's ok/desirable to abort because of "low" IQ, why not abort if it seems likely the embryo will have an IQ of 99, or slightly below average. People with DS can have perfectly happy and fulfilling lives and their parents can love them dearly and also lead perfectly happy and fulfilling lives. Sure it's something of an uncommon burden, but so is being hit by a bus at the age of 15 and being paralyzed from the neck down for life, neither are necessarily/definitively lives not worth living: now I know a 15 year old is objectively alive while an embryo is a hypothetical life, I know, it's a slippery slope argument bla bla bla, but still: there should be absolutely no pressure placed upon prospective parents to abort their embryo/fetus because it has Down Syndrome, just as there should be no stigma placed upon prospective parents who do abort. That's the real issue, there should be no cheering or booing on this subject. It is 100% up to the parents, it's not our concern...... until it happens to us.

[Denny Crane!]

This isn't a topic about abortion. Obviously every person is free to decide what to do there (within the legal limits/timeframe), and they should be free as well. The topic is about Dawkins posting yet another dumb view of his according to which he has something non-platitude like to say on this subject as well. People with DS very clearly have a handicap, but a person with a very high intelligence may easily come to regard people with 'average' intelligence as also having a horrible handicap. It doesn't follow that it is a good idea to advertise how some "ethics" or "logic" is the one to lead to what parents choose in the case of any abortion, let alone DS cases or other such handicaps.

In short: Dawkins has nothing of importance to say and that is why he once again got himself in a lousy trolling debate from both sides, cause he is a troll as well.

Yes I saw your earlier comment and unfortunately have no interest in debating another somewhat irrational dawkins hater. Go look at the first sentence. I have no interest in debating how poor a thinker you think he is, how much of a troll or where you fairly huge seeming dislike come from.

Morality is like art: it's about drawing a line somewhere (whose position is based on various schools of thought) and hoping it works out okay.
If It's ok/desirable to abort because of "low" IQ, why not abort if it seems likely the embryo will have an IQ of 99, or slightly below average. People with DS can have perfectly happy and fulfilling lives and their parents can love them dearly and also lead perfectly happy and fulfilling lives. Sure it's something of an uncommon burden, but so is being hit by a bus at the age of 15 and being paralyzed from the neck down for life, neither are necessarily/definitively lives not worth living: now I know a 15 year old is objectively alive while an embryo is a hypothetical life, I know, it's a slippery slope argument bla bla bla, but still: there should be absolutely no pressure placed upon prospective parents to abort their embryo/fetus because it has Down Syndrome, just as there should be no stigma placed upon prospective parents who do abort. That's the real issue, there should be no cheering or booing on this subject. It is 100% up to the parents, it's not our concern...... until it happens to us.

As you say he said it is ultimately a personal choice but in moral terms if you have a choice between a healthy baby and one who (admitting the possibility of a happy life) is very likely to have severe health problems as listed and possibly unable to live without support then the optimal choice seems to be to try again where those options exist. I mean if there is a good chance that they can't survive without support what if you die and the government starts rolling back support?

For instance in the UK we had a government sponsored work program that gave disabled people and very low IQ people jobs in factories. You could say that they were living independently but when the funding dried up the factories closed and they lost their jobs.

No pressure but as opinions go I think it was a good one.

[Kyriakos]

Yes I saw your earlier comment and unfortunately have no interest in debating another somewhat irrational dawkins hater. Go look at the first sentence. I have no interest in debating how poor a thinker you think he is, how much of a troll or where you fairly huge seeming dislike come from.

Could you pls reconsider this? I would hate for it to be final that you won't debate me on Dawkins

[Denny Crane!]

Could you pls reconsider this? I would hate for it to be final that you won't debate me on Dawkins

Well I mean if you want to open a topic about whether or not Dawkins is a poor thinker or not go ahead. But the reason I called it irrational because it is a common thing, you can't say Richard Dawkins without someone lamenting about either 1. arrogance 2. dick 3. poor thinker. Regardless of the topic. And it turns out that when I ring my bell my dog immediately eats a strawberry meringue.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

There are aspects of human instinctual morals that are universal to healthy humans, or at least apparently universal.
This is the base of morals, all morals.

Indeed there are - happiness is almost universally accepted to be something that is good. However whilst all humans may desire happiness it is how it is to be acheived that the debate lies upon. A world of instant gratification is scorned by religious groups. In some religions suffering is seen as a good to be taken upon and endured. So whilst all humans may share morals stemming from shared experience it is in the interpretation of these experiences that morality arises from. So the problem of moral universalism again arises.

The modern human is simultaneously (and arguably paradoxically) both collectivist and individualist. The needs/desires of the many does not necessarily outweigh the needs/desires of the individual, nor does the needs/desires of the individual necessarily outweigh the needs/desires of the many.

Quite true, this is at the heart of utilitarianist debate I assume. Do we go for a Star Trek like "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or is individual liberty too valuable to squander.

If morality were universal in the absolutist sense there would be no debate on morality, we would just know and that would be that, game over, time to stop thinking. However this is not the case. Morality is simultaneously subjective and objective, it is simultaneously individualist and collectivist, the society that best moderates these seemingly contradictory aspects will be the more successful society.

This is quite near to the crux of the matter as I see it. Being more of the materialist school of thought I would argue that as you said morality is not universal in the absolutist sense of the word, and thus it cannot be. It would seem we agree here, I was originally criticising Dawkins for this, but I have realised that it must appear as a universal concept for the sake of demonstrating and resolving (or not) social contradictions. My original critisism of Dawkins was perhaps pedantic. As for your point of the subject/object angle on the matter I say that it is objective in that it represents a real thing that acts on people. It is subjective only in the individual, and in its conception.

It's debatable whether all human morality comes from human society. Even feral children (deprived of human society for a variety of reasons, language, the capacity for abstract thought etc.) display basic, instinctual morality like sharing food, protecting what he/she views as his/her tribe/clan/family etc.

But these are simply arising from the actual conditions of life, a natural response to basic problems of demand felt by all animals. Sharing food is logical for the preservation of the pack, as is protecting the tribe/clan/family etc. So these morals again arise from the actually existing conditions of life and the necessaries of all societies to survive in nature. In this case the distinction between society and nature is arbitary as for all intents and purposes they are one and the same, society simply reflects a process of survival in nature.

Not all societies are equal, it follows that not all moral systems are equal.

True, but for lack of a satifactory way to quantify which society is best it is best to simply assume all are natural responses to existing conditions, thus no one has intrinsic value over the other as they all simply reflect natural changes to existing circumstances.

Morality coming from biology in my view is a non-contentious position, we all share basic instinctual morals, this is self evident, it offers us no absolutist moral system, but that's fine: the desire for an absolutist moral system is something that we are imbued with from social/cultural/historical/artificial pressures. Where contention enters the equation is when ideology is added onto this intrinstic, instinctual moral root, the over-suppression of certain instincts, or under-oppression of certain instincts causes problems, empirical problems that can be observed and measured with contentious criteria: be it theistic moral systems, utilitarian moral systems etc. etc. The claims for "this massive list of moral assertions is universal because "science/god" states it to be so based on this observation/book/treatise/logical-argument"........ it's just: that's nice, non objective, it's lovely/can be lovely, but that's about it.

Again I'm not so sure of morality stemming from biology as from the existing requirments of life, which in turn lead to society. A child placed in the void of space and left there for 20 years before being placed in human society would have no concept of morality we could relate to. Why would he share when all he has know was loneliness? Why protect anything independent of yourself having been left with nothing but yourself? Thus in my view morals stem less from biology - which simply provides the medium, but from the requirments of life, those things which in specific circumstances are needed to maintain your biological requirements. Thus ideology, theology, moral systems etc. are not subjectivley added to this moral root, they constitute a natural part of it that emerges due to the existing conditions of life. So the object - the existing conditions in turn create the objective human society and morals, which then act subjectivley on the human society.

It's quite easy to deduce using reductionist reasoning where the source of morality is, but but that then undermines assertions of moral "truths", not only contemporary assertions, but all assertions throughout history. It's far easier to destroy than it is to create. What do you think: would society be better off if we simply pretended that moral assertions are true and ignore our biological/neurological/anthropological findings?

Addressing the question posed at the end it seems that society already does treat moral assertions as true, in that people like Dawkins can claim it would be immoral to do so and so. Perhaps a society that recognised that no moral assertion is true, but exists only due to existing circumstances and peculiarities would be better, as the debate would have moved on from idealism - trying to assert truth through thought patterns neccesaily already prejuiced by their existance in a material world - and into the actually existing world, where things might be better remedied. However even a victory of one moral over another in the idealistic realm would produce actual effects in wider society. The question ultimatley - is that of the most effective medium

[Maiar93]

Indeed there are - happiness is almost universally accepted to be something that is good. However whilst all humans may desire happiness it is how it is to be acheived that the debate lies upon. A world of instant gratification is scorned by religious groups. In some religions suffering is seen as a good to be taken upon and endured. So whilst all humans may share morals stemming from shared experience it is in the interpretation of these experiences that morality arises from. So the problem of moral universalism again arises.

Read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" to see one of the most cogent arguments that detail precisely why you are wrong.

But sure. People have different opinions about how to reach happiness, thing is, these are not all equal opinions. If a person says he is healthy when he is constantly vomiting and eating dog poo, he will never be taken seriously - similarly if a person says he is moral while killing little girls for learning to read, he will never be taken seriously and his opinion is worthless. Morality relates to well-being and there are facts to be discovered about what leads to our well-being, the question then is what these facts are.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Read Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" to see one of the most cogent arguments that detail precisely why you are wrong.

Can you give me the main idea of the book? Don't get me wrong - I'm not making a Theistical statment that morality cannot exist without God or the supernatural, simply that Universal morality cannot exist without that. As I hoped to make clear a biological morality is tricky to say the least in my view, but I'm open to being persuaded.

But sure. People have different opinions about how to reach happiness, thing is, these are not all equal opinions. If a person says he is healthy when he is constantly vomiting and eating dog poo, he will never be taken seriously -

That is true but that is simply a statment based on biology - it cannot be translated into a universal moral concept. Unless its don't eat dog poo, which I think is quite commonly held.

similarly if a person says he is moral while killing little girls for learning to read, he will never be taken seriously and his opinion is worthless. Morality relates to well-being and there are facts to be discovered about what leads to our well-being, the question then is what these facts are.

From the biological morality that says well-being is the first order of business he is indeed immoral. But in his own twisted ideology he see's himself as moral. I see him as highly immoral, if I had been raised in a higly conservative family in the Middle East I might think differently. I was simply saying that objective morality is demonstratably false by the very fact that he is doing an action for which all of western society will denounce him - but in their own mind is justified by a morality stemming from their social background. If there was objective morality he would follow it, we all would. I am not saying we should not have morals, we should and we should argue them, but they are not inherently true - nor can they be. They arise from specific circumstances, we should understand these. Perhaps the best way to eradicate the danger for girls going to school in the middle east/aisa for example is not to denonce those who attack them as immoral and let that be an end, but to eliminate the social conditions that allow the morals the perpetrators use to justify their acts.

[Maiar93]

Can you give me the main idea of the book? Don't get me wrong - I'm not making a Theistical statment that morality cannot exist without God or the supernatural, simply that Universal morality cannot exist without that. As I hoped to make clear a biological morality is tricky to say the least in my view, but I'm open to being persuaded.

I can't quite do it justice, so I suggest that - when you have the time - watch a public lecture of Sam's about the moral landscape, which can be found in YouTube. Or then you can research from Google on your own.

That is true but that is simply a statment based on biology - it cannot be translated into a universal moral concept. Unless its don't eat dog poo, which I think is quite commonly held.

Well you lost me there. It's not only a statement of biology, you can't fence these things apart from one another. Facts and values are not separate; in fact we cannot talk about one without invoking the other.

From the biological morality that says well-being is the first order of business he is indeed immoral. But in his own twisted ideology he see's himself as moral. I see him as highly immoral, if I had been raised in a higly conservative family in the Middle East I might think differently. I was simply saying that objective morality is demonstratably false by the very fact that he is doing an action for which all of western society will denounce him - but in their own mind is justified by a morality stemming from their social background. If there was objective morality he would follow it, we all would. I am not saying we should not have morals, we should and we should argue them, but they are not inherently true - nor can they be. They arise from specific circumstances, we should understand these. Perhaps the best way to eradicate the danger for girls going to school in the middle east/aisa for example is not to denonce those who attack them as immoral and let that be an end, but to eliminate the social conditions that allow the morals the perpetrators use to justify their acts.

If morality is to mean anything, then that person who thinks himself so moral while killing innocents must be acting in an objectively immoral manner. Otherwise morality just doesn't have a point to it, because everyone has an equal share. Objective morality is not the same as that there are objective moral facts to be found, and objective moral values to be derived from these facts. A sort of a moral landscape starts to open up: peaks and valleys that correspond to the heights of suffering and well-being.
I do not think that the best way to get rid of immorality is to tell a cult of murderers that they're full of . It doesn't mean that it's not true however.

[Copperknickers II]

How does this work?

Abortion is wrong for downs syndrome because its nazi eugenics. Well then so it is for Spinal Bifida, anencephaly, and other of other extremely painful and life shortening disease that western medicine has long recommended an abortion instead of putting a child through it.

So apparently the nazis won and eugenics is here. But why on earth is that a bad thing? And I'm with others who have pointed out that abortion is not the same or equal or relevant to whether or not people still here are happy or should be alive.

It is entirely relevant if you believe that foetuses are already living human beings, and irrelevant if you don't. Obviously, if we had the ability to create designer babies, I'd be against creating one with any sort of chromosome deficiency, because that would not result in any already living human being killed. But once the person is already created, it is too late, and you have to recognise that the right to live is more important than the convenience of not being disabled. I think we both agree on this point, albeit you think the point of no return is after the birth.

With that logic it would be moral for parents to do the reverse, take a typical fetus, choose to modify its DNA so as to give it downs syndrome and all the symptoms that accompany it. Gestate, birth and raise it. Are you prepared to defend that? I think it would be a cruel thing to do.

No, that doesn't follow at all. A foetus with Down's syndrome is nobody's fault, it just happens.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

I can't quite do it justice, so I suggest that - when you have the time - watch a public lecture of Sam's about the moral landscape, which can be found in YouTube. Or then you can research from Google on your own.

Will do.

Well you lost me there. It's not only a statement of biology, you can't fence these things apart from one another. Facts and values are not separate; in fact we cannot talk about one without invoking the other.

Sorry about that - I admit its a bit vague - I was just making clear my idea that I think its hard to draw morality from biology/science. If you can show me how a moral concept logically follows from a scientific fact I will happily admit I am wrong.

If morality is to mean anything, then that person who thinks himself so moral while killing innocents must be acting in an objectively immoral manner. Otherwise morality just doesn't have a point to it, because everyone has an equal share. Objective morality is not the same as that there are objective moral facts to be found, and objective moral values to be derived from these facts. A sort of a moral landscape starts to open up: peaks and valleys that correspond to the heights of suffering and well-being.

I see the point your getting at here - and I just wish to clarify my position here. I do not deny that morality should be used - in fact the oposite - my position is that it can only be used, other than that it has no value. It is nominal. Thus positions should be taken and defended, but they can only be taken and defended, they cannot be proved. The moral should convince those who oppose it that it is correct. Then for all practical intents and purposes it is correct as society makes use of it in such a way. I was simply saying that in a larger sense, as I do not see how moral can be objectivley derived from scientific truth but see them only as emerging from social/natural proccesses, how any moral can be objectivley correct. So I hold that the value of morals should only be practical - it cannot be true but should act as such.

I do not think that the best way to get rid of immorality is to tell a cult of murderers that they're full of . It doesn't mean that it's not true however.

I just think that one moral system (preferably Utilitarianism or something of the like) should attempt practically to triumph over the others, so that, for all practical intents and purposes they are immoral.

[Maiar93]

Sorry about that - I admit its a bit vague - I was just making clear my idea that I think its hard to draw morality from biology/science. If you can show me how a moral concept logically follows from a scientific fact I wil happily admit I am wrong.

I should first make it clear that science shouldn't be looked on narrowly, as in white men in labcoats scanning your brain telling you what to do. Science is, at its core, a really good way of finding out how things work.

There isn't much to prove, to be honest: this seems very obvious to me.

Consider the fact that stabbing a man repeatedly with a burning lance will hurt him. We all agree that being hurt is bad. Another fact: there can be times when hurting a person is necessary. Therefore it is immoral to unnecessarily hurt a person. Also take note: this is talking in principles.

It seems obvious to me that 'hurting is bad' is in most cases a very factual statement, and is obviously true in principle. One does not need to make any more or any worse assumptions than which he has to make about physics, or chemistry, or biology; simply that there are facts to be discovered, in this case about how our minds work. Then we go where the evidence leads us. While this kind of thinking does not lead to immediate answers now, it's a very solid foundation, and I think a very important one. Because we of course want out moral intuitions and values be as correct as possible, so that we do not visit unnecessary suffering upon others.

I see the point your getting at here - and I just wish to clarify my position here. I do not deny that morality should be used - in fact the oposite - my position is that it can only be used, other than that it has no value. It is nominal. Thus positions should be taken and defended, but they can only be taken and defended, they cannot be proved. The moral should convince those who oppose it that it is correct. Then for all practical intents and purposes it is correct as society makes use of it in such a way. I was simply saying that in a larger sense, as I do not see how moral can be objectivley derived from scientific truth but see them only as emerging from social/natural proccesses, how any moral can be objectivley correct. So I hold that the value of morals should only be practical - it cannot be true but should act as such.

Following this line of reasoning, we cannot really prove anything to be true. Nothing can be proven to the very last drop. However, facts about morality need not be any harder to obtain than facts about physics or health, because we know now that morality is dependent on our minds and we can study the mind through the brain. That's why there are objective truths to be found.

I just think that one moral system (preferably Utilitarianism or something of the like) should attempt practically to triumph over the others, so that, for all practical intents and purposes they are immoral.

The moral system that ought to triumph, whatever it is, probably won't be a 'pure' version of any of the current existing ones. I can see parts of consequentalism, utilitarianism, altruism, being in it. It's impossible to tell now what it's going to be, and maybe we will never discover that. But there is a foundation for discovering these truths, and some of them we can already see (plain as day, very obviously) and speaking in terms of moral relativism will only serve to muddy the waters. It's the sort of thinking we need to snap out of if we really want to talk about morality and well-being, without obscuring the facts.

[Himster]

Indeed there are - happiness is almost universally accepted to be something that is good. However whilst all humans may desire happiness it is how it is to be acheived that the debate lies upon. A world of instant gratification is scorned by religious groups. In some religions suffering is seen as a good to be taken upon and endured. So whilst all humans may share morals stemming from shared experience it is in the interpretation of these experiences that morality arises from. So the problem of moral universalism again arises.

The problem of universalism only occurs when one posits morality to be a whole, while I do not. There are two distinct parts: one natural and the other ideological. We all agree on natural morality, it's as evident as the existences of honey bee society, it is in a loose sense: universal, in that it permeates human societies regardless of geography or time. What is not universal is the second component of morality and that is what can be considered artificial or ideological such as religious dogma, utilitarianism, humanism etc.

Quite true, this is at the heart of utilitarianist debate I assume. Do we go for a Star Trek like "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or is individual liberty too valuable to squander.

It is a good maxim, as is turn the other cheek, or the principle of reciprocity. However as rules of thumb they are not practically helpful in living day to day. The variables and vagueries of context and the inherent subjectiveness of moral feeling mean these principles cannot be used dogmatically. It is dogma that is the apparent weakness of religions in the modern world and may be a weakness experienced by secular moral philosophies when they are tried and tested on larger scales. Dogmatism may be an inherent problem of the human condition, but I digress.

This is quite near to the crux of the matter as I see it. Being more of the materialist school of thought I would argue that as you said morality is not universal in the absolutist sense of the word, and thus it cannot be. It would seem we agree here, I was originally criticising Dawkins for this, but I have realised that it must appear as a universal concept for the sake of demonstrating and resolving (or not) social contradictions. My original critisism of Dawkins was perhaps pedantic. As for your point of the subject/object angle on the matter I say that it is objective in that it represents a real thing that acts on people. It is subjective only in the individual, and in its conception.

We agree.

But these are simply arising from the actual conditions of life, a natural response to basic problems of demand felt by all animals. Sharing food is logical for the preservation of the pack, as is protecting the tribe/clan/family etc. So these morals again arise from the actually existing conditions of life and the necessaries of all societies to survive in nature. In this case the distinction between society and nature is arbitary as for all intents and purposes they are one and the same, society simply reflects a process of survival in nature.

Whether

True, but for lack of a satifactory way to quantify which society is best it is best to simply assume all are natural responses to existing conditions, thus no one has intrinsic value over the other as they all simply reflect natural changes to existing circumstances.

I don't believe intrinsic value exists. Even if it did exist there is no way I know of to determine which is the case, thus I am left with the only recourse: suspension of belief.
You might say there is no satisfactory way to quantify which society is best, in purely absolutist terms this is true, however we are subjective beings. I will judge a Middle Eastern man for beating his wife for not willingly having sex with him and he will judge me for drinking and having pre-marital sex in my "decadent" country. This is how it goes. We both have our convictions, we both have our reasons for believing and acting in these ways, but we cannot unequivocally prove to the other that my/his way is better. Whether morality is "real" is practically irrelevant.

Again I'm not so sure of morality stemming from biology as from the existing requirments of life, which in turn lead to society. A child placed in the void of space and left there for 20 years before being placed in human society would have no concept of morality we could relate to. Why would he share when all he has know was loneliness? Why protect anything independent of yourself having been left with nothing but yourself? Thus in my view morals stem less from biology - which simply provides the medium, but from the requirments of life, those things which in specific circumstances are needed to maintain your biological requirements. Thus ideology, theology, moral systems etc. are not subjectivley added to this moral root, they constitute a natural part of it that emerges due to the existing conditions of life. So the object - the existing conditions in turn create the objective human society and morals, which then act subjectivley on the human society.

I have used that exact same argument. lol. Very good (except I said island, yours is much better.)
From that person we would get the most pure biological form of basic morality possible, but it is the most extreme and cruel experiment imaginable, well one of the most cruel.
From these extremely cruel experiments (and discovered feral children) conducted on humans and chimps (mostly chimps) we have found programmed behaviors (mostly only in pre-adolescence) that compel our primate (or even mammalian) brain to react to certain stimuli in certain ways, some of these reactions we have traditionally called "moral", such as sharing, requiring contact, grooming etc. However if these certain stimuli are not met, then yes these instincts are not activated and the individual will never be capable of existing in any kind of society, be it chimp or human. There is a kernel of, the most basic kind of morality programmed into us, like honey bees, chimps some species of ants etc. All social organisms require to have this pre-programmed to exist.

Addressing the question posed at the end it seems that society already does treat moral assertions as true, in that people like Dawkins can claim it would be immoral to do so and so.

It does, however I'm wondering if this is just linguistic conditioning left over from our more religious past or the conscious position of most people: it's impossible to tell, even if asked I'm sure most people would not be able to tell you.

Perhaps a society that recognised that no moral assertion is true, but exists only due to existing circumstances and peculiarities would be better, as the debate would have moved on from idealism - trying to assert truth through thought patterns neccesaily already prejuiced by their existance in a material world - and into the actually existing world, where things might be better remedied. However even a victory of one moral over another in the idealistic realm would produce actual effects in wider society. The question ultimatley - is that of the most effective medium

I don't think moral debate will ever move on from idealism, even without the existence of moral truth idealism is still relevant, we are still driven to have our opinions shared by others. The fact that moral "truth" is unknowable changes almost nothing.