People, as social creatures, naturally come together for the betterment of each other. Each individual functions better by being a part of a resourceful and supportive group rather than an uncooperative loner. As such, we would naturally form a system of laws to make the group function as best as possible. Eventually, these laws would be complemented with consequences for those who break them. This is all without a supernatural view of morality.

Keep in mind it's not morality that keeps people in order. Laws and consequences are what keep people in order. These laws and consequences evolve naturally as societies try to do what's best for itself. Unlike morality, these laws would have real-world consequences. And if there's some prevalent behavior that the society decides is harmful, then it will eventually be weeded out. As societies evolve, they will naturally discourage harmful behavior while encouraging supportive behavior without a supernatural explanation of morality. Why? Because it increases their longevity, which is something all beings naturally want.

The actions we label as "right" or "wrong" don't have to be backed up by some absolute & divine source of morality; instead they are backed up by what we, as civilized societies, have discovered to be what's best for people and our species. So when we say "unnecessary murder is absolutely wrong", we aren't saying there's an ever-reaching system that makes murder wrong. We're saying unnecessary murder is absolutely harmful to society, which is bad for everyone, and is thus a "bad" action.

That being said, I don't know of any evidence for a supernatural view of morality. We obviously don't need it to say that certain behaviors are "right" or "wrong". We can simply say that certain behaviors are bad for society, and it will have the exact same meaning and interpretation. Some people may ask, "why should people feel obligated to do what's best for a species?", but I think this is a really silly question; people will naturally want to do what's best for its species, and it's specific group because it helps each individual in the longterm. It's not that complicated.

It really doesn't matter if you believe absolute morality exists or not. You must agree that humanity naturally develops certain rules that are always considered "good" or "bad". Whether or not you call that "absolute morality" is purely based on semantics. But what gets me is people that believe absolute morality can only be explained using the supernatural. I do not understand these people.

This was a interesting philosophical quandary once upon a time until we discovered that morality wasn't uniquely a human characteristic. A great many species apparently possess a sense of morality. In all likelihood the mental framework predates even the emergence of Hominids. That said the evidence is pretty clear morality is actually a natural phenomena, and as it is predominantly instinctual it is absolute.

While reasoning tells us why the trait persists. That isn't what governs the interaction. What governs our morality is our own biochemistry in the form of emotions. Altruistic behavior results in good feelings even if we didn't comprehend why what we did was good. Just as negative behavior will result in bad feelings. Even if there were no consequences for our acts. As odd as it seems the majority of people are law abiding, because they don't want to suffer the consequences inside their own heads. Rather then any real punishment they are unlikely to receive.

Obviously that doesn't mean that we cannot override these impulses and engage in selfish behavior, but outside of some serious mental derangement all of us have to contend with the instinct to do right rather then wrong. Even if you had no conceptualizing of a written or spoken language, and had no words to put to your thoughts. You would still engage in behaviors to ingratiate yourself with others, and would prefer to not engage in detrimental behavior.

Morality is a absolute, and it is perfectly natural. I would give food to someone that was starving just to see them smile. In the end morality doesn't come from society.

Absolute Morality doesn't exist everyone has some evil in them.

Not to mention the strong irony that more secularized countries tend to have less murders, less thefts and less cases of rape. You often hear people ask, "Why would you care about being a good person when there is no punishment after death anyway?", and yet the fact remains that people in less religious countries generally commit less crimes. Needless to say, there is no reason to ask that question in the first place.


To answer the question in the title: My answer is obviously "no". As long as the population is encouraged to be lawful while also being discouraged from committing crimes through naturally gained traits and/or through actual laws, people will remain lawful and avoid behaving immorally towards each other. Regardless if they believe in supernatural beings/laws or not.

@Jay520

I saw what you did there.

Absolute morality does require some outside observer that sets the "standard" for what is moral and not in every morally ambiguous situation.

I don't want want an absolute morality. I'd much rather have a well thought out consensus for what is to be considered moral in a society, and I'd want morality defined as "actions and attitudes that leads to the highest possible well-being for the largest number of people possible"

@KungKras

What you are describing is to the letter the justification for Genocide, Slavery, Colonialism, Inquisitions, Misogyny, Pogroms, Terrorism, Ethnic Cleansing, Bigotry, Concentration Camp, Environmental Exploitation, and just about every war in the history of mankind. In other words you may need to rethink your positions on this question. I doubt you would care too much for your option if you were in the minority.

49ers just scored again!!!!

I do not think absolute morality exists. That is not to say relative, constructed morality is desirable but it is the way things are and have to be dealt with.

There would have to be an outside force to create absolute morality, so the answer as framed is 'Yes'. The morality we have now is a product of evolution and social pressures, is therefore about concious or unconscious collective self-interest, and is largely imaginary.

Would you say that their scoring constitutes judgement of world morality at present? If so does it represent approval or disapproval of our direction?