Can Insticts Explain Morality?

When discussing morality and if it is objective or not, many skeptics and atheists like to say that evolution and animal instinct is the explanation for why we have moral experience. Is this a valid explanation? Does it account for "right" and "wrong"?

Impulse Regulation

The claim that morality is in no way external to humans but part of our instincts fails to explain why we have morality. Morality is not the instincts themselves, but regulates the expression of impulses. An instinct alone says nothing about whether it should be expressed. A man's sex drive does not explain when it is appropriate to pursue it, but only that it exists. Similarly to how a single key on a piano is unable to tell you how loud to play it, or when. External guidelines determine when and how the key is played.

Now does subjective opinion vary between person? Absolutely, but everyone's opinions are governed by a standard that we ought to follow. So to answer the question "why is helping people good?" With "because its good for society" fails to make the point. That explains the how it affected a population, and in no way explains the why of the question, that goes deeper.

If all moral truth resides in opinion, then it is inherently subjective. And the claim here is that "truth is relative". But there's a logical inconsistency here: if all truth is relative and none are absolute, then how is the claim that there are no absolutes be an absolute truth? It makes no sense.

If we all follow a set of morals that cannot be broken or accepted by human opinions, like racism and genocide, then this begs a law giver, an origin for the moral law that is applied to us all. "What about mentally ill people who can't comprehend some emotions, doesn't that refute absolute morality?" Well, those cases are situations where something has gone wrong, outside of the natural expectation. Would we use outliers to argue against majority data? Moreover If that person was perfectly healthy, wouldn't their moral compass work the same as everyone else's? And doesn't the mentally ill person still hold to a standard of right and wrong, even though its not operaring correctly? If there is no right and wrong, then nobody would hold to right and wrong so deeply and inherently.

"But Evolution Explains Morality"

If evolution is responsible for our morality, then why is rape absolutely wrong? If we are motivated by an instinctual drive to pass and persevere our genes, then in a situation where the population is low, rape would be a perfectly useful tool for doing just that. Survival of the fittest and natural selection do not develop morality. Moreover in the animal kingdom rape, murder, genocide, and other evils occur often. So if we are basing our morality on animal behavior and instinct, then why are actions like murder and genocide still wrong? The racoon kills the birds children, the monkey throws his poo at people, ducks and geese rape eachother to reproduce, and lions have fun torturing their prey before eating them. This fails to take its logic seriously, and avoids the obvious slippery slope it creates. You are still left with the issue that Morality is not the same as instinct.

Objective or Subjective?

When it comes to truth and its relationship to persons, they can come out to be two of one types. Subjective truths are claims and beliefs that are soly determined by the person's experience and perspective. Objective truths are facts and beliefs that exist independently of the person's opinions, that correspond with reality. In an objective truth scenario, we can observe the object in question and test if a claim about it is valid and true.

Is the claim "truth is relative to the person" an objective or subjective claim? Can we observe the behaviors and actions of a person, examine their natural impulses, and then conclude if morality is originating from inside, or if it is being applied from the outside. Like mentioned earlier, Morality is not the same as instincts. Instincts would be subjective in that they are solely based in the persons experience and preferences. Since morality governs how and when impulses can be expressed, we can conclude that morality does not originate from inside the person, but is applied to their behaviors and inclinations.

"Society Decides Morality"

If group vote decides what is right and wrong, then how do we distinguish between two groups who disagree? There seems to be no basis for communication here.

"That's Ture for You, But not for Me; It Depends on Perspective and Experience"

If morality is just opinion, then there is no basis for imposing anything on anyone. This is because under that logic, every single possible position on right and wrong is equally valid.

Think about it, if the government said "all laws are decided by you," what would the state of the country look like? It would fall into an immoral catastrophe extremely fast. If morality is based on feelings, and feelings are based on experiences that are unique to the individual, then how can morality be objective or absolute? Don't experiences change, and thus feelings. If feelings change, and morality is based on feelings, then there ceases to be a basis for any communication or regulation of behavior.

"When we separate facts and values, genuine moral debate becomes impossible. If morality is merely a matter of private feelings, then any attempt to reason with people is perceived as a personal attack. (Charles Colson, "Lies That Go Unchellenged In Popular Culture", 42. Emphasis is mine).

If a person assumed morality is formulated through feelings (and often times people who hold this belief also find identity in their feelings), then any disagreement is seen as a personal attack on their feelings and identity, thus increasing their emotional state that is most likely already high, possibly intruding on their ability to reason. When we adopt this mindset, the logical conclusion is there is no basis for objecting to anything outside of your preferences, because another persons preferences are equally valid. The fact that nobody actually lives in accordance with this, continuing to make objective claims despite their denial of such, points us in the direction that in reality, there is a moral standard beyond us that governs how and when we can perform certain behaviors, and which ones are right and wrong. Christianity has the best explanation as to why God is able to impose Morals on us, because we are created in the sovereign God's image, sharing His likeness for reason and moral accountability. If we were not, then there would be no reason to think any moral law governs us, but there is a standard external to a persons mind pointing us in the direction of a law giver.

When someone's says to you something akin to "there is no absolutes moral truth," you can respond with "is that absolutely true."

Or if someone says "you can't impose your beliefs on me," or "you can't judge my beliefs" you may push back with, "why are you judging me for judging you, why are you the only one with authority to decide right and wrong for everyone else?"

Conclusion

If we all experience a set of moral laws that we cannot deem "right" in any circumstance, or beinfluenced by any opinion or majority vote, then the laws themselves cannot originate from us. It must be an external guideline employed by a law giver. That being God or a mind with a will to define the standard and impose it on those who bear His likeness.