Killing is justified if it is the action which brings about the most overall "good", where good is simply some function of basic values such as life, happiness, etc. For example, if in killing someone you save a greater number of people that could not have been saved otherwise, then, all else being equal, it is most definitely justified. Granted, these "basic values" aren't necessarily consistent between people, but how much disagreement is there with regards to those? Are there any people who think happiness is wrong?
A lot of people would argue differently. Many of my disagreements with my theology teacherpromoter happen because he believes in a strong difference between consequences of one's actions and of one's inaction. For example, he believes that a do-not-resuscitate is fine (he signed one himself) because one is choosing not to take extraordinary measures to save one's life, while suicide is wrong because one is taking extraordinary measures to save one's life. Abortion to save the mother's life is wrong because she's causing the baby's death, while the mother's death is causing by inaction, so no one is responsible. This difference in opinion is not based on anything factual, but it still creates two very different sets of moral beliefs.
Killing is justified if it is the action which brings about the most overall "good", where good is simply some function of basic values such as life, happiness, etc. For example, if in killing someone you save a greater number of people that could not have been saved otherwise, then, all else being equal, it is most definitely justified.
Some how I can see this being part of the argument for assassination of select government officials and for the general culling of certain human populations.
Slavery is justified because if is the action that brings about the most overall "good," where good is simply some function of basic values such as life, happiness, etc. For example, having a slave force of one to serve a household of five that would otherwise have been "unhappy," all else being equal, if most definitely justified.
Freedom is also one of the things I'd call "basic values". Even if a slave makes the slave owners a little happier, that comes at the cost of the happiness and freedom of the slave. Also, happiness is not merely a binary state of being "happy" or "unhappy". The loss of happiness to the slave would likely outweigh the happiness gained by the slave owners, even without considering freedom as a value. I've never seen a convincing argument for slavery being for "the greater good" in any circumstances; similarly so for the culling of entire populations. Assassination, on the other hand, is definitely a justifiable act under certain circumstances (e.g. Gaddafi, most likely).
A lot of people would argue differently. Many of my disagreements with my theology teacherpromoter happen because he believes in a strong difference between consequences of one's actions and of one's inaction.
This difference in opinion is not based on anything factual, but it still creates two very different sets of moral beliefs.
Your theology promoter thinks two real things are different when they are clearly not. A choice not to act is still a choice.
I'm not arguing that basic values are a simple thing. Consider William Frankena's list, which is one of the most comprehensive I've seen: "Life, consciousness, and activity; health and strength; pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds; happiness, beatitude, contentment, etc.; truth; knowledge and true opinions of various kinds, understanding, wisdom; beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated; aesthetic experience; morally good dispositions or virtues; mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation; just distribution of goods and evils; harmony and proportion in one's own life; power and experiences of achievement; self-expression; freedom; peace, security; adventure and novelty; and good reputation, honor, esteem, etc."
I think consequentalism is the only coherent position, but specific consequentialist philosophies all too often disregard the aforementioned complexity. The typical utilitarian approach to reduce everything to simply a matter of "happiness" fails miserably.
As for the justification of atrocities in the name of the "greater good", that's a legitimate issue, but it's important to note that the arguments against them are also consequentialist in nature. The argument reduces to "If you act in the name of the greater good, you'll do things that aren't for the greater good!" What you should take out of this is that, in the real world, if someone tries to justify something in the name of the "greater good", you have to look at it very skeptically. You have to make sure there aren't any other viable alternatives, especially if it's something like military action. You also need to be aware that the "greater good" is not such a simple concept.
Killing is justified if it is the action which brings about the most overall "good", where good is simply some function of basic values such as life, happiness, etc. For example, if in killing someone you save a greater number of people that could not have been saved otherwise, then, all else being equal, it is most definitely justified. Granted, these "basic values" aren't necessarily consistent between people, but how much disagreement is there with regards to those? Are there any people who think happiness is wrong?
A lot of people would argue differently. Many of my disagreements with my theology teacherpromoter happen because he believes in a strong difference between consequences of one's actions and of one's inaction. For example, he believes that a do-not-resuscitate is fine (he signed one himself) because one is choosing not to take extraordinary measures to save one's life, while suicide is wrong because one is taking extraordinary measures to save one's life. Abortion to save the mother's life is wrong because she's causing the baby's death, while the mother's death is causing by inaction, so no one is responsible. This difference in opinion is not based on anything factual, but it still creates two very different sets of moral beliefs.
Freedom is also one of the things I'd call "basic values". Even if a slave makes the slave owners a little happier, that comes at the cost of the happiness and freedom of the slave. Also, happiness is not merely a binary state of being "happy" or "unhappy". The loss of happiness to the slave would likely outweigh the happiness gained by the slave owners, even without considering freedom as a value. I've never seen a convincing argument for slavery being for "the greater good" in any circumstances; similarly so for the culling of entire populations. Assassination, on the other hand, is definitely a justifiable act under certain circumstances (e.g. Gaddafi, most likely).
How does "freedom" make the list of basic values, but "life" doesn't?
I think consequentalism is the only coherent position, but specific consequentialist philosophies all too often disregard the aforementioned complexity. The typical utilitarian approach to reduce everything to simply a matter of "happiness" fails miserably.
What consequences should be used to judge an action? the intended consequences or the actual? With the actual consequences, morality is a useless construct since you cannot actually determine how to act until you've seen the results of that action. On the other hand, if the intended consequences are what determine the morality of an action, then you're left with a world where everything is morally justified because it was meant for the best.
What is the point of a morality that doesn't assist in deciding how to act?
How does "freedom" make the list of basic values, but "life" doesn't?
It does...
What consequences should be used to judge an action? the intended consequences or the actual? With the actual consequences, morality is a useless construct since you cannot actually determine how to act until you've seen the results of that action. On the other hand, if the intended consequences are what determine the morality of an action, then you're left with a world where everything is morally justified because it was meant for the best.
What is the point of a morality that doesn't assist in deciding how to act?
The actual consequences are what matters in the end, clearly. We can't know for sure what they are at the time, so we have to do the best we can in working out what the consequences of an action will be, and that's how you decide how to act. Basically, you have to work out the probabilities of various outcomes based on the best information available, and calculate the expected value.
The actual consequences are what matters in the end, clearly. We can't know for sure what they are at the time, so we have to do the best we can in working out what the consequences of an action will be, and that's how you decide how to act. Basically, you have to work out the probabilities of various outcomes based on the best information available, and calculate the expected value.
Then if you're bad at calculating this you're a terrible person?
Then if you're bad at calculating this you're a terrible person?
No one can calculate something like that accurately, but you have to put in a good effort, and the more serious the situation, the more effort you have to put in. If the situation is serious and you know this kind of calculation is something you're bad at, you obviously can't rely on doing it yourself - you need help from other people.
Even if you can't calculate well, you can still get by in day-to-day life with rules of thumb that work almost all the time, like "don't kill people". Indeed, such heuristics are essential as humans, because we simply cannot use that kind of reasoning for every decision we make.
I don't understand the insistence on the existence of morality? Sure, statements defining morality establish a localized hierarchy of preference, usually with the intent of validation/enforcement. But why is it anything more than that?
If assassination can be justified as a moral act, but slavery is never justified, then somehow freedom has made the list of core values, while life gets honorable mention.
I personally think that all sentient beings do have a core set of inalienable rights, and to disregard those rights is to act immorally. This means that I as an individual ought not kill Gaddafi, as that would be denying his right to live. If he were threatening my life, I might attempt to kill him before he kills me, but I would not claim it was a moral action, just an expedient one.
I do make distinctions between individual actions, and political or legal actions, which are performed by the state(with individuals as agents). The state cannot be moral or immoral, it can be just or unjust.
If assassination can be justified as a moral act, but slavery is never justified, then somehow freedom has made the list of core values, while life gets honorable mention.
No, life is evidently more important as a core value; without life you cannot have freedom. You're misinterpreting my position. I didn't say slavery was never justified, but short of entirely unrealistic situations such as coercion at the hands of some super-powerful being (e.g. you must enslave these people or all of humanity dies), I can't see how it would be. This is not the case for killing. The point is that if I value a life, then it's obvious that I must value hundreds of lives far more than I value just one. If assassinating Gaddafi was a viable way to quickly end the Libyan conflict, then I would consider it the right thing to do.
I personally think that all sentient beings do have a core set of inalienable rights, and to disregard those rights is to act immorally. This means that I as an individual ought not kill Gaddafi, as that would be denying his right to live. If he were threatening my life, I might attempt to kill him before he kills me, but I would not claim it was a moral action, just an expedient one.
The idea of "inalienable rights" is an overly simplistic one. It tells you nothing about how to act when people's rights will be violated no matter what action you take, or when your actions won't violate anyone's rights at all. How do you respond to the trolley problem? Is it not moral to help others who are in need, even if not doing so would not violate any right of theirs?
I do make distinctions between individual actions, and political or legal actions, which are performed by the state(with individuals as agents). The state cannot be moral or immoral, it can be just or unjust.
The idea of "inalienable rights" is an overly simplistic one.
I agree. We deprive criminals of at least liberty and the pursuit of happiness all the time. Freedom and the pursuit of happiness are nothing but privileges that only those committing acts endangering the well-being of society stand to lose.
Yes, people who deprive others of their rights are criminals, and shall be deprived of their rights as punishment if found guilty.
However, those who take upon themselves the duty of enforcement must also themselves be deprived of some rights, at least while on the job. Whether it is the president, a congressperson, a soldier, a judge, or a police officer, they must be deprived of some freedoms in the line of duty in order to protect the rights of the citizens.
Thus we have basically two types of people. Those with rights, and those without them. If we give everyone all their rights all the time on paper, they don't really exist. Rights must be protected by some force. Yet, those given the power to protect rights are necessarily also granted the power to remove them, which is a great power indeed. Therefore, in exchange for that power, some rights must also be sacrificed to create a balance. One part of our society sacrifices their liberty and/or life such that the rest may have it.
I don't understand the insistence on the existence of morality?
Who is insisting, and on what, exactly?
Perhaps I missed something, but why argue the finer details of an objective morality unless one considers its existence a possibility? My question is, where does the question come from? Do you WANT an objective morality to exist, and if so, why? Or do you FEEL that it exists, and how do you separate that from your cultural programming to think so?
Other thoughts:
The idea of inherent inalienable rights is peculiar since the notion is fairly new. And made more complex when there is disagreement on what those rights are -- enforcing them on others would defy their rights, while not enforcing them would deny them.
Or on preview, this:
The idea of "inalienable rights" is an overly simplistic one. It tells you nothing about how to act when people's rights will be violated no matter what action you take, or when your actions won't violate anyone's rights at all.
Combine that with the remaining global power structures and you have a recipe for neo-colonialism. The call for increased education is often naive -- in the end you're forcing your beliefs on someone else or indoctrinating their children. Whose beliefs are correct?
On slavery, I think the current state of job dilution and blue-collar/white-collar work-effort -> money/cost of food-shelter is fraudulent. When does poor compensation turn into slavery? Additionally, consider the environmental movement and the impact of industry & mechanization -- First, there were slaves, then work-animals, and then machines. Manual labor is considered inferior and undesirable, yet it's relatively eco-friendly. Does morality apply in terms of environmental concerns, or creatures of undetermined sentience? Does morality apply here, by extension to those supporting that system? Not to mention, can modern economy survive in a "moral" system?
Coming back to colonization, even opium trading, the colonizers saw themselves as bringing knowledge and civilization (and god) to the colonized, even though the system typically boiled down to a variant on indentured service.
On population, the human species is over-populated and unsustainable. Although it is mildly self-limiting, without medicine, law enforcement, etc. would this be an issue? Is it a "train tracks" situation where killing people is somehow legitimate? It's perhaps too much extrapolation to be more than a hypothetical, but where does one draw the line?
Obviously perspective and value hierarchies will determine individual responses in these situations. If we go with common denominators, what about minority beliefs? Are they incorrect? Are they deficient to not have this inherent knowledge of morality? Who is the arbiter of differing moralities? Power is the usual determining factor, practically speaking, but if we're talking RIGHT and WRONG...
To me, under this light, the impossibility of universal non-subjective morality without god (because yes, omni-potent divine morality would be arbitrary) makes sense.
Perhaps I missed something, but why argue the finer details of an objective morality unless one considers its existence a possibility? My question is, where does the question come from? Do you WANT an objective morality to exist, and if so, why? Or do you FEEL that it exists, and how do you separate that from your cultural programming to think so
I don't want an "objective moralty" to exist, because it might tell me to kill babies. Nor do I think that "cultural programming" is the sole source of my morality, nor even the primary one, because if I was simply the product of my culture I'd probably be a Christian and be somewhat intolerant of homosexuality.
There is quite a lot in common between people in very different cultures; we still tend to value the same kinds of things, on the whole. Consider the list I mentioned before: "Life, consciousness, and activity; health and strength; pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds; happiness, beatitude, contentment, etc.; truth; knowledge and true opinions of various kinds, understanding, wisdom; beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated; aesthetic experience; morally good dispositions or virtues; mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation; just distribution of goods and evils; harmony and proportion in one's own life; power and experiences of achievement; self-expression; freedom; peace, security; adventure and novelty; and good reputation, honor, esteem, etc."
Although morality is the product of our minds, that doesn't mean it's something different people cannot have a great deal of unity on. I think most of the trouble comes from a warped perception of reality - e.g. religious belief - rather than having major differences in values on a fundamental level.
Nor do I think that "cultural programming" is the sole source of my morality, nor even the primary one, because if I was simply the product of my culture I'd probably be a Christian and be somewhat intolerant of homosexuality.
Don't forget internet culture. I don't know when you formed your beliefs, but every podcast I've really listened to has changed my beliefs to some extent, be it Geeknights or Penn Jillette. These beliefs are very much a part of a changing culture. A couple hundred years ago, practically no one would have agreed with you. But now, there are a bunch of internet atheist liberals. It's still part of our culture.
My point is simply that morality cannot become objective even in the presence of complete information.
Your evidence for this seems to be that even if we know what to value, we cannot know when to cross the line (You posed the question "when does killing become justified?"). But I would think truly complete information would tell us when to cross that line. Just because we are unable to identify when that line should be crossed does not mean there is not some objective standard that tells when to cross the line.
I don't want an "objective moralty" to exist
What if it does exist?
However, this almost always the result of a factually inaccurate belief that their consciousness will continue on after they die.
Certainly, you can demonstrate that consciousness ceases to be associated with a body, but I'm skeptical about your certainty that consciousness ceases entirely. I'm not saying that consciousness does continue, only that I'm not certain enough that it ceases to say that such a statement is factual.
Then there would have been no point to what most philosophers have been wrestling with for the past few millennium. There would be no point to this discussion.
I still stand by my thoughts that if there was an objective morality that this conversation wouldn't ever happen. No one makes a thread that garners this much discussion arguing the merits of water being objectively of subjectively wet. No one has such heated discussions about our ability to breathe air. These things are objectively verifiable.
I suppose one could argue that with enough technology we will one day be able to verify that an objective morality exists. Akin to how, long ago, we argued about the existence of atoms. We could not verify their existence until we had the technology to detect it. How this would be possible with morality I have no idea.
I suppose one could argue that with enough technology we will one day be able to verify that an objective morality exists. Akin to how, long ago, we argued about the existence of atoms. We could not verify their existence until we had the technology to detect it. How this would be possible with morality I have no idea.
The thing is, we don't eve have a theory of objective morality. We had a theory of atoms before we actually detected atoms, and so goes it for many things in science. Can anyone here even come up with an idea of how morality could possibly be objective? Use your imagination, what could anyone possibly detect or discover that would demonstrate that morality was an objective part of the universe?
Nor do I think that "cultural programming" is the sole source of my morality, nor even the primary one, because if I was simply the product of my culture I'd probably be a Christian and be somewhat intolerant of homosexuality.
Don't forget internet culture. I don't know when you formed your beliefs, but every podcast I've really listened to has changed my beliefs to some extent, be it Geeknights or Penn Jillette. These beliefs are very much a part of a changing culture. A couple hundred years ago, practically no one would have agreed with you. But now, there are a bunch of internet atheist liberals. It's still part of our culture.
The big difference is that Geeknights is an element of culture that you freely choose to partake in. The fact that in modern times we can, to an increasing extent, choose our own culture, is a massive advancement.
However, if we're talking about beliefs, i.e. what I believe to be true, I try very much to base those on facts, not culture. No one is entitled to their own facts.
My morality comes from the combination of my model of reality with the things I value. However, I think the things I value - things like consciousness, pleasure, freedom and love - are not so much the result of what I have been exposed to; rather, I'd say that these are things that are nearly universal, part of the so-called "psychic unity of mankind" - quite a lot of it sits within the genes we all share. Just look at the morality of chimpanzees; there is already quite a lot in common.
I don't want an "objective moralty" to exist
What if it does exist?
How would you know an "objective morality" if you saw it? If you couldn't, then its existence is a moot point anyway.
Certainly, you can demonstrate that consciousness ceases to be associated with a body, but I'm skeptical about your certainty that consciousness ceases entirely. I'm not saying that consciousness does continue, only that I'm not certain enough that it ceases to say that such a statement is factual.
I made no claim to certainty - we can know nothing with certainty. "Facts" are just things you are very close to being certain of, e.g. 99.9%.
There is no evidence to suggest that anything exists outside of matter and energy. Consciousness is, quite clearly, a process that occurs over the neurons within a brain. Innumerable experiments demonstrate a direct link between the activity of neurons and human consciousness. If the neurons aren't working, which clearly occurs upon death, then consciousness will stop.
Use your imagination, what could anyone possibly detect or discover that would demonstrate that morality was an objective part of the universe?
A complete morality algorithm is encoded within every quark. Your brain instantly recognizes it and you realise that this is indeed the one true morality - all you have ever thought in the past about the subject of "morality" was a weak approximation.
There is quite a lot in common between people in very different cultures; we still tend to value the same kinds of things, on the whole. Consider the list I mentioned before: "Life, consciousness, and activity; health and strength; pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds; happiness, beatitude, contentment, etc.; truth; knowledge and true opinions of various kinds, understanding, wisdom; beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated; aesthetic experience; morally good dispositions or virtues; mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation; just distribution of goods and evils; harmony and proportion in one's own life; power and experiences of achievement; self-expression; freedom; peace, security; adventure and novelty; and good reputation, honor, esteem, etc."
This happens because consciousness arises from evolution and natural selection. Your beliefs are influenced by your ancestors by genetics, if nothing else. If humanity believed that killing people was always good, then your odds of being born would be much smaller. Look at Judeo-Christian tradition: "Thou shalt not kill" [someone from your tribe]. Procreational sex leads to offspring. Beliefs that help make babies make babies with these beliefs. If consciousness arose from a vacuum, perhaps different consciousnesses would have completely different morals, because they really would be arbitrary.
My examples are over-exaggerations (I think, I'm far from an expert) of how much of an effect genetics actually has on our morality, but the point still stands: because we arise from natural selection, we have a disposition towards a certain type of morality.
However, I think the things I value - things like consciousness, pleasure, freedom and love - are not so much the result of what I have been exposed to; rather, I'd say that these are things that are nearly universal, part of the so-called "psychic unity of mankind" - quite a lot of it sits within the genes we all share. Just look at the morality of chimpanzees; there is already quite a lot in common.
I don't know what you're trying to say, but my point is that that's a great thing, and it means we can aspire to a better system of morality based on shared values and objective facts.
Comments
I've never seen a convincing argument for slavery being for "the greater good" in any circumstances; similarly so for the culling of entire populations. Assassination, on the other hand, is definitely a justifiable act under certain circumstances (e.g. Gaddafi, most likely). Your theology promoter thinks two real things are different when they are clearly not. A choice not to act is still a choice.
"Life, consciousness, and activity; health and strength; pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds; happiness, beatitude, contentment, etc.; truth; knowledge and true opinions of various kinds, understanding, wisdom; beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated; aesthetic experience; morally good dispositions or virtues; mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation; just distribution of goods and evils; harmony and proportion in one's own life; power and experiences of achievement; self-expression; freedom; peace, security; adventure and novelty; and good reputation, honor, esteem, etc."
I think consequentalism is the only coherent position, but specific consequentialist philosophies all too often disregard the aforementioned complexity. The typical utilitarian approach to reduce everything to simply a matter of "happiness" fails miserably.
As for the justification of atrocities in the name of the "greater good", that's a legitimate issue, but it's important to note that the arguments against them are also consequentialist in nature. The argument reduces to "If you act in the name of the greater good, you'll do things that aren't for the greater good!"
What you should take out of this is that, in the real world, if someone tries to justify something in the name of the "greater good", you have to look at it very skeptically. You have to make sure there aren't any other viable alternatives, especially if it's something like military action. You also need to be aware that the "greater good" is not such a simple concept.
What is the point of a morality that doesn't assist in deciding how to act?
Even if you can't calculate well, you can still get by in day-to-day life with rules of thumb that work almost all the time, like "don't kill people". Indeed, such heuristics are essential as humans, because we simply cannot use that kind of reasoning for every decision we make.
I personally think that all sentient beings do have a core set of inalienable rights, and to disregard those rights is to act immorally. This means that I as an individual ought not kill Gaddafi, as that would be denying his right to live. If he were threatening my life, I might attempt to kill him before he kills me, but I would not claim it was a moral action, just an expedient one.
I do make distinctions between individual actions, and political or legal actions, which are performed by the state(with individuals as agents). The state cannot be moral or immoral, it can be just or unjust.
The point is that if I value a life, then it's obvious that I must value hundreds of lives far more than I value just one. If assassinating Gaddafi was a viable way to quickly end the Libyan conflict, then I would consider it the right thing to do. The idea of "inalienable rights" is an overly simplistic one. It tells you nothing about how to act when people's rights will be violated no matter what action you take, or when your actions won't violate anyone's rights at all.
How do you respond to the trolley problem?
Is it not moral to help others who are in need, even if not doing so would not violate any right of theirs? An arbitrary distinction.
However, those who take upon themselves the duty of enforcement must also themselves be deprived of some rights, at least while on the job. Whether it is the president, a congressperson, a soldier, a judge, or a police officer, they must be deprived of some freedoms in the line of duty in order to protect the rights of the citizens.
Thus we have basically two types of people. Those with rights, and those without them. If we give everyone all their rights all the time on paper, they don't really exist. Rights must be protected by some force. Yet, those given the power to protect rights are necessarily also granted the power to remove them, which is a great power indeed. Therefore, in exchange for that power, some rights must also be sacrificed to create a balance. One part of our society sacrifices their liberty and/or life such that the rest may have it.
Other thoughts:
The idea of inherent inalienable rights is peculiar since the notion is fairly new. And made more complex when there is disagreement on what those rights are -- enforcing them on others would defy their rights, while not enforcing them would deny them.
Or on preview, this: Combine that with the remaining global power structures and you have a recipe for neo-colonialism. The call for increased education is often naive -- in the end you're forcing your beliefs on someone else or indoctrinating their children. Whose beliefs are correct?
On slavery, I think the current state of job dilution and blue-collar/white-collar work-effort -> money/cost of food-shelter is fraudulent. When does poor compensation turn into slavery? Additionally, consider the environmental movement and the impact of industry & mechanization -- First, there were slaves, then work-animals, and then machines. Manual labor is considered inferior and undesirable, yet it's relatively eco-friendly. Does morality apply in terms of environmental concerns, or creatures of undetermined sentience? Does morality apply here, by extension to those supporting that system? Not to mention, can modern economy survive in a "moral" system?
Coming back to colonization, even opium trading, the colonizers saw themselves as bringing knowledge and civilization (and god) to the colonized, even though the system typically boiled down to a variant on indentured service.
On population, the human species is over-populated and unsustainable. Although it is mildly self-limiting, without medicine, law enforcement, etc. would this be an issue? Is it a "train tracks" situation where killing people is somehow legitimate? It's perhaps too much extrapolation to be more than a hypothetical, but where does one draw the line?
Obviously perspective and value hierarchies will determine individual responses in these situations. If we go with common denominators, what about minority beliefs? Are they incorrect? Are they deficient to not have this inherent knowledge of morality? Who is the arbiter of differing moralities? Power is the usual determining factor, practically speaking, but if we're talking RIGHT and WRONG...
To me, under this light, the impossibility of universal non-subjective morality without god (because yes, omni-potent divine morality would be arbitrary) makes sense.
There is quite a lot in common between people in very different cultures; we still tend to value the same kinds of things, on the whole. Consider the list I mentioned before:
"Life, consciousness, and activity; health and strength; pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds; happiness, beatitude, contentment, etc.; truth; knowledge and true opinions of various kinds, understanding, wisdom; beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated; aesthetic experience; morally good dispositions or virtues; mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation; just distribution of goods and evils; harmony and proportion in one's own life; power and experiences of achievement; self-expression; freedom; peace, security; adventure and novelty; and good reputation, honor, esteem, etc."
Although morality is the product of our minds, that doesn't mean it's something different people cannot have a great deal of unity on. I think most of the trouble comes from a warped perception of reality - e.g. religious belief - rather than having major differences in values on a fundamental level.
Try again.
I still stand by my thoughts that if there was an objective morality that this conversation wouldn't ever happen. No one makes a thread that garners this much discussion arguing the merits of water being objectively of subjectively wet. No one has such heated discussions about our ability to breathe air. These things are objectively verifiable.
I suppose one could argue that with enough technology we will one day be able to verify that an objective morality exists. Akin to how, long ago, we argued about the existence of atoms. We could not verify their existence until we had the technology to detect it. How this would be possible with morality I have no idea.
However, if we're talking about beliefs, i.e. what I believe to be true, I try very much to base those on facts, not culture. No one is entitled to their own facts.
My morality comes from the combination of my model of reality with the things I value. However, I think the things I value - things like consciousness, pleasure, freedom and love - are not so much the result of what I have been exposed to; rather, I'd say that these are things that are nearly universal, part of the so-called "psychic unity of mankind" - quite a lot of it sits within the genes we all share. Just look at the morality of chimpanzees; there is already quite a lot in common. How would you know an "objective morality" if you saw it? If you couldn't, then its existence is a moot point anyway. I made no claim to certainty - we can know nothing with certainty. "Facts" are just things you are very close to being certain of, e.g. 99.9%.
There is no evidence to suggest that anything exists outside of matter and energy. Consciousness is, quite clearly, a process that occurs over the neurons within a brain. Innumerable experiments demonstrate a direct link between the activity of neurons and human consciousness. If the neurons aren't working, which clearly occurs upon death, then consciousness will stop.
My examples are over-exaggerations (I think, I'm far from an expert) of how much of an effect genetics actually has on our morality, but the point still stands: because we arise from natural selection, we have a disposition towards a certain type of morality.