As promised in the 'diabetic girl thread', I have created a new thread addressing the following question; How is morality justified within a purely physicalist world view?  Can it be justified? I foresee two likely 'yay' arguments that might be made;

1. Morality exists solely for the purpose of sustaining a society.  In this case, I interpret morals simply as a tool for upholding the authority of a government and/or religion. 

However, this ultimately means that the morals are arbitrary since they are contingent upon the survival of a particular culture.  Culture interprets morals and therefore culture trumps morality.  If the nazi government says killing Jews is ok, it is 'morally' permissible.  The Confederacy believed slavery to be ok.  Therefore it's ok. 

2. Morality is determined by the individual.  We each have our own thoughts about religion, abortion, euthanasia, etc.  But who am I to tell you what is right or wrong? People should make up their own minds, what is right for them.

In this case, there is no standard.  I can say that killing Ann Frank would be wrong for me, but I cannot say it was wrong for the nazi's to.


These are the two 'yay' arguments I can think of.  If there are others, I am happy to read them because I do not understand how morality can exist within a physicalist framework...

Isn't to say that this particular 'transgression' is 'wrong' assigning to it a value judgment that you are imposing on me?


In a world outside moral absolutes, Warr is closer to right than you.

Immanual Kant supplies the most famous and best known example of a 'God-free' system of morality.

Filling in the blanks is easy, though you are missing an 'axiom' for morality.

The tough part is defending your arbitrary axioms that you begin with.  Both statements are famously unprovable.

In your own personal and subjective reality only.  Nothing personal, but your own subjectivity is an unreliable gage.

Absence of evidence is not substantial proof of anything.  Perhaps you are not looking the right places.

This is no more logically provable than God's non-existence. 

It is difficult to agree on a true definition of morality.

My opinion is very radical and almost always it's either hated or scoffed at..

I think we human are more instinctual than we want to admit. I even believe that our own reasoning derives purely from instinct. I think morality is "not restraining your instinct while keeping your self-control".
Yes I know, It's an ambigous and paradoxical concept, but in a way it's a matter of acting uppon one's feeling without letting them turn us into animals.

Morality is an exclusively human condition because we are able rationalize our instincts. That lets us control them but that also tempts us to supress them.

So in other words, morality for me is the "the ability we have to manipulate our instintcs and emotions" 

Here's the thing about axioms - they are unprovable assumptions that any reasonable person will hold to be true. I don't intend to try and prove it: everyone accepts that it is true. Although...maybe you'd accept this. I don't like being harmed, therefore I consider it immoral for someone to harm me. In order to be logically consistent I must also apply this to everyone else.

BTW, even absolutist theist morality is based on axioms (namely that if God declares something moral then it is moral.)

I think there are reasonable objections to human rights depending on the definition of the word reasonable. But I agree that one can create morals.

Kant is an example of the 2nd type of subjective morality covered in the opening post. But I don't agree with it's dismissal.

I don't think morality has non-consensual authority, but that's not to say it doesn't matter. Condemnation of immorality (as one sees it) can go further than finger waggling. Without god, humans are the final arbitrators good conduct.