There Exists an Objective Morality

Evolutionary EthicsIt is interesting that the opponent claims that "moral intuition" can be "alternatively explained" [emphasis mine] by natural selection. Evolutionary traits and morality, in many ways, go hand in hand. If we take a neo-Darwinian stance on the issue of morality, I think natural selection forms a convincing case for an objective code of morality. Evolution and adaptation of biological structures began with simple prokaryotic organisms, which ultimately led to the existence of a wide array of structurally unique organism types, which includes us, humans. We and our biological traits are products of evolutionary development. Here is my argument for a morality founded on objective principles, through the lens of evolutionary theory:1. Human thoughts are objective biological functions of the brain2. The human brain, and therefore its biological functions, have been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development3. Human thoughts have been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development4. Morality is a direct product of the human brain's thought function5. Morality has been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development...1. "Human thoughts are objective biological functions of the brain"Thoughts are biological phenomena that are produced by brain functions; this is the axiom for my syllogism. Thoughts are electrochemical impulses sent by the billions of neurons in our brains through synaptic transmissions. [1] This is the prevalent theory in modern neuroscience about the nature of thoughts. 2. "The human brain, and therefore its biological functions, have been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development"The following will explain what I mean by "objective standardization." I do not think that the opponent will contest the fact that the human brain has a standard structure, as opposed to the brain of, say, a kangaroo. Genetically, the human brain develops in a structurally unique way that is distinct from those of other species and unique to the human species. This is, of course, a direct result of evolutionary development, specifically speciation. It follows that brain function is also standardized in such a way that is unique to humans.3. "Human thoughts have been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development"A function is greatly influenced by the structure that produces it. In the same way, human thought is greatly influence by the structure of the brain. And if the structure is a product of evolutionary development, then it follows that the function (thought) that is founded on the structure is a product of the same.4. "Morality is a direct product of the human brain's thought function"The distinction between good and bad does not exist outside the realm of the human mind, and I believe that my opponent would concur with this. It is a product of thought. 5. "Morality has been objectively standardized as a direct result of evolutionary development"Structure has been standardized by evolutionary development. Therefore, function has been standardized by evolutionary development. Therefore, thought has been standardized by evolutionary development. Therefore, morality has been standardized by evolutionary development.And it follows that morality, then, has an objective basis, founded on traits acquired through evolutionary development. This argument does not claim that all morality is objective; I will not argue against the idea that social construction, among various other factors, contributes to morality. But it is clear that our brains, and therefore our thoughts, face an objective disposition to uphold a specific foundation for our world views. In other words, we are biologically predisposed, even if in some cases the predisposition is slight, to uphold one moral standpoint over another. Subjectivity In regards to the opponent's example of "'that man killed someone' vs. 'That man killed someone who was about to kill a woman after raping her. The man stopped it by killing him first.'": Every moral decision involves an infinite number of factors, so, indeed, it is impossible to deem something absolutely moral or absolutely immoral. Moral absolutism is not the matter of contention here.Morality is, indeed, not completely objective. An individual's moral views, holistically, are probably more subjective than objective. I will not dispute this. However, I will repeat that the human brain is structured similarly when comparing two members of the human community; there is standardized structure and function. We are predisposed to take on a specific world view over others; there is an underlying objective principle behind morality, though it is certainly not absolute. Moral views differ because of a variety of factors, such as socially construction and differences in biological brain structure. Nonetheless, the structure of the human brain is standardized, and so are its predispositions for taking on specific world views. For example, the standard human brain releases the neurotransmitter chemical dopamine for reward and pleasure centers of the brain [2]; we may view an action to be better than other, due to a difference in potential dopamine release. We do not absolutely choose an action based on this, and we may choose an action that acts in opposition to it; in the end, however, a disposition is present that affects our world view and moral standpoints. Descriptive relativismThe stand-alone, copy-and-pasted excerpts the opponent exhibits toward the end of his round do not really serve his case, since there are no arguments attached. Nonetheless, I will discuss the matter that the opponent brought up.As the opponent stated, "The claim that a person's culture, language, or the like influences his modes of thought does not mean that they completely determine how she thinks." [3] Indeed, despite the fact that differences do exist in the world views of members of different cultures, there are other factors that contribute to their world views. In my argument, I emphasized the roles of the human brain's structure and function in determining one's moral views. The structure and function, furthermore, are standardized, similar enough to constitute a structure that is recognizable and unique to the human species. Our moral views, though dependent on many factors, is influenced by the biological traits that our brains share. ---In conclusion, morality does have an objective basis. An objective realm of morality does exist, and it can be determined through the empirical study of neuroscience. Morality may be a philosophical topic, but it is grounded in objective truths about the human brain and its functions. Back to my opponent.--- [1] http://www.quantummechanicsandreality.com... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...