The usual arguments #2: Objective morality

1) The origin of objective morality Morality can only be objective if moral standards were decided by god or if moral standards were the result of evolution and we can't change them, because we are born with them, just like fear or rage. Case I: divine morality If the moral standards are dictated by a god, they should remain constant throughout time. god is supposed to be perfect, so any god-given rules should never change. For example, The 10 Commandments are the same after over 2000 years, because they are the rules God wants us to follow and they don't change over time. If moral standards are also a god-given set of rules, then they shouldn't change over time. If that was the came, our moral standards would be the same as they were 2000 years ago. Since our moral standards changed drastically, morality in relative and therefore can't be given by a supreme being. Case II: evolution In this case, morality is the result of evolution and is constant in every human, just like fear, rage, happiness etc. Looking at things from an evolutionary psychology perspective, other objective concepts, that cannot be change by every single individual's perception appeared as an adaptation. For example: fear - made us be more careful, allowed us to survive longer, multiply more and eventually fear became objective and present in every human Morality, on the other hand, serves no purpose. Doing what is morally right doesn't help an individual multiply more and it doesn't increase it's life expectancy, therefore there is no reason for morality to be attributed to evolution because according to natural selection, it's not a crucial factor when it comes to passing your genes. Something that doesn't help an individual live longer or reproduce more cannot become a key element of the species and can never become an objective part of their mind. Humor is not objective, nor are we born with it. There is no reason for it to be a part of our mind, because it doesn't help us survive, so it is a subjective concept. 2) If it's widely accepted, it's doesn't mean it's objective The reason why people consider morality objective is because today most people around the world share the same moral standards. This doesn't mean it is objective. We live in societies and we are influenced by them. Children learn about morality when they are still very young, from their parent. Almost all parents pass the same moral values to their children, because they all have those moral values from their parents and so on. In addition, not everybody shares the same moral values. Morality in Europe and America is basically the same, but in Asian and African societies, moral standards are different and people act differently. Something that is considered immoral in European societies is perfectly normal in Asian societies[1] 3) Recent changes The difference in moral standards works against god-given moral standards, but morality achieved through evolution can technically still exist. However, if morality in dependent of evolution (and therefore inherited), then it can only change over a few generations and only if it is vital for the survival of humans. So, if morality was objective, slavery should still be considered moral everywhere in the world. There is no evolutionary reason for slavery to be considered immoral. Most Americans born in the 19th century believe slavery was moral as kinds but died thinking it was immoral. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...