"Morality becomes relative." There is a difference between cause and purpose. I think this misunderstanding comes down to the same one that plagues economics, that is assuming that value is objective. The alternative to objective value isn't relative value, it is subjective value. Just as Menger moved economics forward with his recognition that the value of material things is subjective, we must now recognize that higher order values are also subjective to have any hope of demystifying the true nature of morality (from the atheist perspective anyway). The mistake that these godless heathens make over and over is assuming that morality can be objective. Without God, this is logically impossible. We know the cause of morality if we do not believe, the cause as with everything else, is natural. But what of the meaning? This is an entirely different question. While nature must have produced our own subjective values, the purpose and meaning that has emerged is real, and it is our own. My perspective is that nature has endowed us with the capacity to build ourselves into beings of virtue and character. This ability must have provided an adaptive advantage, and it is up to evolutionary psychologists to play around with exactly how this works. Fun topic for discussion I'm sure. Regardless of exactly how it works, this is what happened. To recognize this, you only need let the RHB take the wheel. The thing is, being a dimorphic sexually reproducing species there isn't only one strategy that was selected for. This is where the recognition of subjectivity comes into play. Some of us are blessed (or cursed, depending on your perspective) with preferences much better aligned with pro-social, positive sum yielding behaviors. To use a simple example contract long and short term mating strategies. These are mutually exclusive strategies that very clearly manifest themselves phenotypically in human society. Should I feel holy and superior to those with short term strategies that are likely consequences of innate preferences? This is where the hard questions lie. Can we progress socially to a point where we can appreciate the fact that some people have preferences that cause them to behave in ways that don't resonate with our own subjective values? I think we can, but we need technology to do so. This is why I advocate for the non-aggression principle and voluntarism as a common value that must be upheld regardless of our innate preferences. Strategies based on coercion, violence, and fraud can't be tolerated for another reason: because they are hypocritical. This is why the seven sins and virtues resonate with people, because they allow us to strive towards a life without hypocrisy. This might sound like an objective morality, it is not. It is still based on subjective preferences. In the case of hypocrisy we can generally hang out hat on the assumption that everyone has their own subjective preference to not be on the receiving end of coercion, deceit, or fraud. Lots more to expand on, just some quick initial thoughts. The bottom line is that I think the human mind has an innate tendency to conceive of value as objective, and this lures the darwinians and communists into psychic traps of logical inconsistency. Your example of trying to believe a and b simultaneously above demonstrates this brilliantly. B is true, A is not. Altruism is real, but to be maximized, we must deliberately align in with our subjective preferences. This is how I think of Paul talking of being justified/aligned with the Spirit FWIW.
"Morality becomes relative." There is a difference between cause and purpose. I think this misunderstanding comes down to the same one that plagues economics, that is assuming that value is objective. The alternative to objective value isn't relative value, it is subjective value. Just as Menger moved economics forward with his recognition that the value of material things is subjective, we must now recognize that higher order values are also subjective to have any hope of demystifying the true nature of morality (from the atheist perspective anyway). The mistake that these godless heathens make over and over is assuming that morality can be objective. Without God, this is logically impossible. We know the cause of morality if we do not believe, the cause as with everything else, is natural. But what of the meaning? This is an entirely different question. While nature must have produced our own subjective values, the purpose and meaning that has emerged is real, and it is our own. My perspective is that nature has endowed us with the capacity to build ourselves into beings of virtue and character. This ability must have provided an adaptive advantage, and it is up to evolutionary psychologists to play around with exactly how this works. Fun topic for discussion I'm sure. Regardless of exactly how it works, this is what happened. To recognize this, you only need let the RHB take the wheel. The thing is, being a dimorphic sexually reproducing species there isn't only one strategy that was selected for. This is where the recognition of subjectivity comes into play. Some of us are blessed (or cursed, depending on your perspective) with preferences much better aligned with pro-social, positive sum yielding behaviors. To use a simple example contract long and short term mating strategies. These are mutually exclusive strategies that very clearly manifest themselves phenotypically in human society. Should I feel holy and superior to those with short term strategies that are likely consequences of innate preferences? This is where the hard questions lie. Can we progress socially to a point where we can appreciate the fact that some people have preferences that cause them to behave in ways that don't resonate with our own subjective values? I think we can, but we need technology to do so. This is why I advocate for the non-aggression principle and voluntarism as a common value that must be upheld regardless of our innate preferences. Strategies based on coercion, violence, and fraud can't be tolerated for another reason: because they are hypocritical. This is why the seven sins and virtues resonate with people, because they allow us to strive towards a life without hypocrisy. This might sound like an objective morality, it is not. It is still based on subjective preferences. In the case of hypocrisy we can generally hang out hat on the assumption that everyone has their own subjective preference to not be on the receiving end of coercion, deceit, or fraud. Lots more to expand on, just some quick initial thoughts. The bottom line is that I think the human mind has an innate tendency to conceive of value as objective, and this lures the darwinians and communists into psychic traps of logical inconsistency. Your example of trying to believe a and b simultaneously above demonstrates this brilliantly. B is true, A is not. Altruism is real, but to be maximized, we must deliberately align in with our subjective preferences. This is how I think of Paul talking of being justified/aligned with the Spirit FWIW.