I think we're getting close to shedding light on the problem here.
We have a moral sense, and both moral and immoral behaviour. All of this arises through evolution as Skep describes.
But what one person at a given time feels is morally right may NOT be what another person at another time feels is morally right. I would say this is dependant on how a person's background and experiences lead them to feel. The way Plumjam describes it basically seems to be saying the same thing.
If you believe there is such a thing as an absolute morality, then some of these standards may be closer than others, without any being completely right, possibly with some being completely wrong. People must rely on their own sense of what is right to get as close as they can. They believe they are approaching truth, based on feelings (how they feel about the results of their and other moral systems).
If you do not believe there is such a thing as absolute morality, you must simply choose a moral value (probably again based on your experiences), ideally admit you're choosing it, and evaluate everything based on that.
For example, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as absolute morality. When I say that comfortable, happy, self-determined life has value and every person should have as equal a shot at doing what they like as possible as long as they're not harming anyone/wasting too many resources... I have to admit I'm basing this on my feelings, as they have arisen from my experiences (and the way human minds work, if we want to go around stating everything explicitly).
I can, however, say that it does look like 'there is value in the majority of the people around you surviving resonably well' is a universal moral of society, unless there's some awful pressure on it.
So it seems like the idea of an absoulte morality (vs. relative morality) is similar as far as trying to argue and find evidence for, as the idea of a god/gods (vs. natural human feelings)
Hm. This seemed clearer when I started typing.
Maybe replying to this can help me explain to plumjam what the problem is with his answer that morals come from some "inner feeling".
The scientific process is not capable of determining a value without the criteria being first designated. If you say x&y are features of beauty and z&e are not, then you can use the scientific process or method to judge the beauty of something by measuring x,y,z&e. The scientific process itself is neutral about beauty, like it is neutral about moral values. But science is not useless for looking at morality and beauty.
But if we take plumjam's position, that one's idea of beauty and one's idea of right and wrong simply exists, that is a god of the gaps premise or one can equally describe those ideas of beauty and morality as having arisen by magic. They are just there. How did they get there? By magic? By gods instilling them in our brains as we sleep? Or, of course there's the recent popular explanation, God 'designed' us to have those moral values and ideas of what is beautiful.
But what does
the evidence tell us about how a human being develops moral values? What does
the evidence say about what influences our idea of beauty? Now you are back to using the scientific process, not to determine what is moral or what is beautiful, but rather, to explain how those values are determined. And low and behold, those values did not arise by magic. We don't need to fill in the knowledge gap by claiming those morals and ideas of beauty were intelligently 'designed'.
We can study behavior using the scientific process or method. We can study what processes are involved in elephant societies that might have parallels in human societies. We can look at brain damaged humans like sociopaths who lack empathy which we consider is one component of morality. We can see what advantages different behaviors have on survival and determine by genetic science which of those behaviors have a genetic component.
We then do use science, not to tell us what is absolutely moral or immoral. That is a question for philosophers and frankly, since there is no absolute morality, I find it rather a useless exercise in pondering. Using science, I can learn a lot more about morality than simply thinking philosophically about implications. I care about other people. I would feel uncomfortable stealing. I would find it extremely hard to kill or injure someone. But I don't think one needs magic or gods to explain why I have those values. Those "inner feelings" plum mentions are brain processes. We can see discomfort and the emotion of love on PET scans and MRIs and EEGs. We can measure electrical and neuro-chemical brain processes which accompany and explain why certain behaviors result in discomfort such as stealing.
No reason to throw up your hands in dismay and pronounce, "we can never understand", or "we cannot explain". Yes, as a matter of fact, we can.
