Objective morality

[Sair]

Your question is begging the question! How can a collection of physical properties “manifest” rationality? The very use of the term in that context manifests itself as bizarre…

And your question, in turn, is sneaking in an insistence that it isn’t possible for physical properties to manifest rationality - that is, the perception of cause-and-effect relationships, the ability to form and hold concepts. At the end of the day, we can do all these things. All it will take is an eventual demonstration that all of these things are, in fact, accomplished by the physical properties of our brains, nervous systems and sensory capacities - that is, in the absence of any mysterious substance we might call a ‘soul’ - and it will have been demonstrated that physical properties can, indeed, manifest rationality.

And what about our pronounced tendencies towards irrationality? Where do you suppose these come from?

Can you observe, measure, test, predict or calculate thoughts?

I most certainly can be aware of having thoughts, and I can track their course and make predictions about what kinds of things will have certain effects upon my thought patterns. Maybe I’m abnormally introspective, but it definitely is possible to observe thoughts.

“Sometimes” implies that we are usually responsible!

We can be responsible for our interpretations of our experiences whilst having no control over the external stimuli. Some people are more usually responsible for their interpretations than others. Some people don’t believe in epistemic duty, and are just happy to pick up whatever sounds appealing and run with it. We don’t have any choice about making choices - even the choice to do nothing is a choice. What still doesn’t make sense to me is the belief that if the choice-making entity is a collection of physical components and forces - the physical components and forces that comprise the human animal - that this choice-making entity is not ‘me’ unless it contains a magical element that is not part of the physical web of cause and effect, perception and information. You’ll probably respond that “Physical components can’t make choices!!!” as if this is obviously the case, but in the absence of any actual explanation of why this should be the case, given our experience, it just looks like insistent denial.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

**The point is that antelope don’t tend to seek revenge or take personal affront at the fact of lion predation. They don’t put a subjective construction, such as ‘evil’, upon the circumstance. **

Well, your the one who raised the comparison, not me.

We were talking about objective reasons to do objective good and avoid objective evil.

You’re the one who tried to liken the human situation to antelopes, as I recall.

In point of fact, subjectivism is the milieu in which imagination does its work. A human could imagine a lion without the lion being objectively present.

The antelope has no imagination. When he barks it’s not because he imagined a bark, but because he rightly senses an objective reason to bark … the lion.

 

[Sair]

Sair

**The point is that antelope don’t tend to seek revenge or take personal affront at the fact of lion predation. They don’t put a subjective construction, such as ‘evil’, upon the circumstance. **

Well, your the one who raised the comparison, not me.

We were talking about objective reasons to do objective good and avoid objective evil.

Actually, we were talking about the difference between considering something evil, which is a subjective judgement, and considering something practically harmful, which is an objective judgement. It takes subjectivity to suppose that something objectively harmful can be good, for example, and vice versa. It also depends upon a particular point of view - no doubt it’s good from the lion’s perspective if she succeeds in bringing down the antelope.

You’re the one who tried to liken the human situation to antelopes, as I recall.

Actually, I was attempting to draw a contrast between subjective judgements of evil and practical judgements of harm.

In point of fact, subjectivism is the milieu in which imagination does its work. A human could imagine a lion without the lion being objectively present.

It would also take human imagination to suppose that the lion could be evil, rather than just doing what it needs to do to survive.

The antelope has no imagination. When he barks it’s not because he imagined a bark, but because he rightly senses an objective reason to bark … the lion.

He also doesn’t subject himself or his fellows to moral judgement in relation to whether he does or does not bark. The outcomes are purely practical.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

Actually, I was attempting to draw a contrast between subjective judgements of evil and practical judgements of harm.

You keep using the term “practical” when what you are really talking about is “objective” (real) evil or harm.

When a lunatic in an asylum fear being assassinated because he imagines he is Hitler, that is imagination (subjectivity) run wild.

When a sane man in a jungle hears the roar of an approaching lion, that is objective fear of real danger. It isn’t just a practical response. It’s a response to an objective fact.

When a person says he will work for a living, that is an objectively good method to attain an objectively good end.

When a thief says he will steal enough money so that he will never have to work again, that is an objectively bad method to attain an objectively bad end.

He may think he is objectively seeking an objectively good end, but he is not. He has subjectively persuaded himself that the end is good, and so is the method.

Please don’t answer that he is just being practical!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For anyone who needs to be educated about objective and subjective morality, there is an excellent and thorough discussion in chapter 15 of Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

 

[PRmerger]

For anyone who needs to be educated about objective and subjective morality, there is an excellent and thorough discussion in chapter 15 of Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

Peter Kreeft–gotta love him! Best. Catholic. Philosopher-Apologist. Ever. (Well, in modern times. )

 

[Sair]

Sair

Actually, I was attempting to draw a contrast between subjective judgements of evil and practical judgements of harm.

You keep using the term “practical” when what you are really talking about is “objective” (real) evil or harm.

Practical and objective are not exactly synonyms, no, but they are close enough in meaning to help with the explanatory process. Practicality is all about dealing with what happens. Objectivity is all about perceiving what happens, independent of our subjective judgement of the matter. Here you are conflating ‘evil’ - a subjective judgement - with ‘harm’ - an objective (or practical) consequence.

When a lunatic in an asylum fear being assassinated because he imagines he is Hitler, that is imagination (subjectivity) run wild.

And the objective assessment of this person would probably diagnose something like paranoid schizophrenia. Subjectivity deals with more than just imagination - it deals with feelings and responses and beliefs particular to an individual subject, or even shared by a group of subjects.

When a sane man in a jungle hears the roar of an approaching lion, that is objective fear of real danger. It isn’t just a practical response. It’s a response to an objective fact.

Fear, in fact, is a subjective response - a response experienced by a particular subject, not a mind-independent phenomenon. Certainly, this response is triggered by very real, objective danger (at least in the above scenario) but the response itself is subjective.

When a person says he will work for a living, that is an objectively good method to attain an objectively good end.

When a thief says he will steal enough money so that he will never have to work again, that is an objectively bad method to attain an objectively bad end.

He may think he is objectively seeking an objectively good end, but he is not. He has subjectively persuaded himself that the end is good, and so is the method.

Please don’t answer that he is just being practical!

But that’s the whole point - the thief is being practical - objectively speaking, stealing a large amount of money is a very effective and efficient way to gain a large amount of money for onesself. Our subjective judgement, based upon the fact that we don’t like being stolen from, based on our belief that is is unfair to those from whom the money is stolen, is - if we are sufficiently empathetic and well socialised - that it is wrong and bad to steal money from others, and therefore better to work for our gain in an honest exchange.

 

[tonyrey]

Your question is begging the question! How can a collection of physical properties “manifest” rationality? The very use of the term in that context manifests itself as bizarre…

What precisely are the “physical properties” that perceive cause-and-effect relationships and have the ability to form and hold abstract concepts?

At the end of the day, we can do all these things.

You have leapt from “physical properties” to “we”! From plural to singular and tangible to intangible…

All it will take is an eventual demonstration that all of these things are, in fact, accomplished by the physical properties of our brains, nervous systems and sensory capacities - that is, in the absence of any mysterious substance we might call a ‘soul’ - and it will have been demonstrated that physical properties can, indeed, manifest rationality.

“All it will take” and “it will have been” presuppose a great act of faith! Based on what?

And what about our pronounced tendencies towards irrationality? Where do you suppose these come from?

Our physical properties!

Can you observe, measure, test, predict or calculate thoughts?

I most certainly can be aware of having thoughts, and I can track their course and make predictions about what kinds of things will have certain effects upon my thought patterns.

Can you observe, measure, test, predict or calculate thoughts?

Maybe I’m abnormally introspective, but it definitely is possible to observe thoughts.

Not with your eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin…

“Sometimes” implies that we are usually responsible!

We can be responsible for our interpretations of our experiences whilst having no control over the external stimuli. Some people are more usually responsible for their interpretations than others.

Interpretations are not necessarily choices. The intellect alone is not a sufficient explanation.

Some people don’t believe in epistemic duty, and are just happy to pick up whatever sounds appealing and run with it. We don’t have any choice about making choices - even the choice to do nothing is a choice.

Precisely! Does the fact that we don’t have any choice about making choices imply that we have no choice?

What still doesn’t make sense to me is the belief that if the choice-making entity is a collection of physical components and forces - the physical components and forces that comprise the human animal - that this choice-making entity is not ‘me’ unless it contains a magical element that is not part of the physical web of cause and effect, perception and information. You’ll probably respond that “Physical components can’t make choices!!!” as if this is obviously the case, but in the absence of any actual explanation of why this should be the case, given our experience, it just looks like insistent denial.

The onus is on you to explain **how **one collection of physical components and forces can combine to transcend the physical causes that determine every event in this universe.

 

[Sair]

What precisely are the “physical properties” that perceive cause-and-effect relationships and have the ability to form and hold abstract concepts?

I’m no neuroscientist, but on my own simplified reading, these would be our sensory faculties, combined with the biochemical and electrical components of our brains and nervous systems.

You have leapt from “physical properties” to “we”! From plural to singular and tangible to intangible…

And you have again merely assumed a complete disconnect between physical properties and personal experience.

“All it will take” and “it will have been” presuppose a great act of faith! Based on what?

Based upon the trend of scientific research and discovery to overthrow supernatural explanations of experienced phenomena.

Our physical properties!

How do they cause irrationality, if they are governed by cause-and-effect relationships?

Can you observe, measure, test, predict or calculate thoughts?

I’ve already indicated that I can observe and sometimes even predict them - I don’t have the wherewithal in my own brain to measure or calculate them, however that might be accomplished. But experienced phenomena are experienced phenomena - even if thoughts, as such, come from some supernatural aspect of the person having said thoughts, if they can be experienced, they are at least theoretically subject to investigation. It ought to be possible, ultimately, to distinguish and delineate what makes thoughts supernatural rather than natural phenomena, if indeed they are the former. To simply assume they are supernatural, just because we can’t hold them or contain them or measure them is to underestimate the extent of natural reality.

Not with your eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin…

Which are not the only avenues for experience.

Interpretations are not necessarily choices. The intellect alone is not a sufficient explanation.

Then what would you propose as a sufficient explanation, and why? There are, after all, many influences upon the intellect. It’s hardly an independent entity. Nor, for that matter, is the personality - it is shaped by experiences.

Precisely! Does the fact that we don’t have any choice about making choices imply that we have no choice?

Why should it? The plain fact of our existence is that we have to do something, even if that something is sitting idle.

The onus is on you to explain **how **one collection of physical components and forces can combine to transcend the physical causes that determine every event in this universe.

What are these supposedly limited physical causes that determine every event in the universe, and why do you suppose they are too simple and straightforward to cause something like thought? The onus is not on me, personally, since I am not a neurophysicist; all I need to do is question the assumption of hard limits upon what can and cannot be physical phenomena. However, as I’ve said, since we don’t know the extent of physical reality’s capabilities, why insist that some phenomena absolutely can’t be physical?

I mean, you say that ‘we’ cannot exist, as such, if our thoughts, beliefs, emotions and so forth are manifestations of physical entities and forces and reactions - but this doesn’t follow, at least from the manner in which a human being perceives their own thoughts and feelings. Of course there isn’t a third party sitting in our brains analysing the firing of synapses and the workings of neurons - we only experience the results of these things happening. If there were, and we could directly observe how every thought resulted from electrical impulses and lit up neural pathways, that would actually be a rather good argument for the existence of souls…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

But that’s the whole point - the thief is being practical - objectively speaking, stealing a large amount of money is a very effective and efficient way to gain a large amount of money for onesself.

Prisons are full of people who thought they were being practical about stealing large amounts of money.

Objectively, they were being impractical by having deceived themselves (subjectively) that they could beat the law.

You seem to be conflating (your favorite word?) subjective with every mental state.

If every mental state were subjective, there would be no laws in nature to be discovered. But becasue nature imposes itself upon our consciousness, we have to distinguish which perception of nature is subjective (purely illusory) and which is objective (really true). Of course some people will lie to themselves, or be deceived by others, into thinking it is practical to believe something for which there is no objective evidence (such as sodomy), when nature has made it abundantly clear that sodomy is neither practical to believe in nor healthy.

Conflate that!

 

[Sair]

Sair

But that’s the whole point - the thief is being practical - objectively speaking, stealing a large amount of money is a very effective and efficient way to gain a large amount of money for onesself.

Prisons are full of people who thought they were being practical about stealing large amounts of money.

Objectively, they were being impractical by having deceived themselves (subjectively) that they could beat the law.

Do you really think there are thieves who haven’t beaten the law? The upper ranks of most big corporations are populated by them…

You seem to be conflating (your favorite word?) subjective with every mental state.

Here’s where it gets tricky - mental states, as facts of nature, are objective in the sense that they are mind-independent for everyone other than the individual who manifests/experiences those states. To use the above example, it is objectively true that laws exist for the prosecution of thieves, and police forces exist for the enforcement of those laws - but again, that is a matter of practicality, not a matter of whether it is good or bad, wrong or right, moral or immoral, to steal - laws exist purely for social management, at the end of the day, and stealing, for the most part, is something that upsets people - something that causes negative subjective responses. I don’t steal, because my subjective feelings, shaped by my upbringing and experience, lead me to believe that stealing is wrong. I have had people break into my house and steal from me, and I can assure you, I was plenty unhappy about that. Why would I choose to inflict that upon someone else? Some people don’t have those particular feelings, so stealing, for them, is a matter of mere cunning. If they can beat the law, that’s great for them - they don’t feel guilty for what they do as long as they can get away with it.

If every mental state were subjective, there would be no laws in nature to be discovered. But becasue nature imposes itself upon our consciousness, we have to distinguish which perception of nature is subjective (purely illusory) and which is objective (really true). Of course some people will lie to themselves, or be deceived by others, into thinking it is practical to believe something for which there is no objective evidence (such as sodomy), when nature has made it abundantly clear that sodomy is neither practical to believe in nor healthy.

Every mental state is subjective because the individual who experiences that mental state experiences it uniquely - how can a mental state be mind-independent?

The reason we can refer to objective facts in nature is because these facts are manifest regardless of how any individual experiences them. I might see a tree from a different angle, a different perspective, than my neighbour, but neither of us can deny that the tree is there to be seen.

Personally, I’ve seen plenty of objective evidence that sodomy exists, both amongst humans and other animals - just to throw out an example, a friend of mine breeds Sebastopol geese, and they have a pronounced tendency towards male-male bonding. This isn’t exactly practical from a breeder’s point of view, but what are you going to do? Preach to the geese that sodomy is against god’s order? Good luck with that…

 

[Bobber90]

Here are a few popular write-ups of research into areas of science that shake up traditional notions of the self:

Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them
wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

Brain Scan Can Read Your Thoughts
news.discovery.com/tech/brain-scan-mind-reading.html

Non-conscious perception - blindsight
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

I’m sure these sorts of studies are not news to you, and there are better articles than the second one, which you can consult. The questions that arise are the same:

Do they reinforce the belief that we have an immaterial soul?

Do they suggest that our thoughts have a material basis? (Tonyrey take note!)

 

[tonyrey]

What precisely are the "physical properties

**How **can tangible factors have insight into intangible facts?

You have leapt from “physical properties” to “we”! From plural to singular and tangible to intangible…

And you have again merely assumed a complete disconnect between physical properties and personal experience.

On the contrary. They are obviously linked. The fact remains that you have leapt from “physical properties” to “we” and from plural to singular and tangible to intangible. What is the source of unity, i.e. the unifying factor?

“All it will take” and “it will have been” presuppose a great act of faith! Based on what?

Based upon the trend of scientific research and discovery to overthrow supernatural explanations of experienced phenomena.

A trend is an inadequate basis for a generalisation about the nature of reality - especially in view of the fact that science presupposes a rational mind.

Our physical properties!

How do they cause irrationality, if they are governed by cause-and-effect relationships?

Do cause-and-effect relationships have insight?

Can you observe, measure, test, predict or calculate thoughts?

I’ve already indicated that I can observe and sometimes even predict them - I don’t have the wherewithal in my own brain to measure or calculate them, however that might be accomplished. But experienced phenomena are experienced phenomena - even if thoughts, as such, come from some supernatural aspect of the person having said thoughts, if they can be experienced, they are at least theoretically subject to investigation. It ought to be possible, ultimately, to distinguish and delineate what makes thoughts supernatural rather than natural phenomena, if indeed they are the former. To simply assume they are supernatural, just because we can’t hold them or contain them or measure them is to underestimate the extent of natural reality.

It may equally well be an overestimate!

Not with your eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin…

Which are not the only avenues for experience.

What are the others?

Interpretations are not necessarily choices. The intellect alone is not a sufficient explanation.

Then what would you propose as a sufficient explanation, and why? There are, after all, many influences upon the intellect. It’s hardly an independent entity. Nor, for that matter, is the personality - it is shaped by experiences.

Shaped but not fully determined unless you relinquish all ability to control yourself…

Precisely! Does the fact that we don’t have any choice about making choices imply that we have no choice?

Why should it? The plain fact of our existence is that we have to do something, even if that something is sitting idle.

Since we do many things without making choices it possible that we never make choices - which is the logical conclusion if all our activity has physical causes.

The onus is on you to explain **how **

one collection of physical components and forces can combine to transcend the physical causes that determine every event in this universe.What are these supposedly limited physical causes that determine every event in the universe, and why do you suppose they are too simple and straightforward to cause something like thought? The onus is not on me, personally, since I am not a neurophysicist… However, as I’ve said, since we don’t know the extent of physical reality’s capabilities, why insist that some phenomena absolutely can’t be physical?

The onus is on **both **sides to justify their position. No one has privileged insight into the nature of reality.

I mean, you say that ‘we’ cannot exist, as such, if our thoughts, beliefs, emotions and so forth are manifestations of physical entities and forces and reactions - but this doesn’t follow, at least from the manner in which a human being perceives their own thoughts and feelings. Of course there isn’t a third party sitting in our brains analysing the firing of synapses and the workings of neurons - we only experience the results of these things happening. If there were, and we could directly observe how every thought resulted from electrical impulses and lit up neural pathways, that would actually be a rather good argument for the existence of souls…

“A human being” is not generally equated with “a human body”. You need to explain why you consider yourself to be a rational entity rather than a collection of irrational organs.
Why are you different from a computer which is unaware of what it is doing?

Ironically your view disposes of subjective morality altogether because it turns everything into objective things!

 

[tonyrey]

Here are a few popular write-ups of research into areas of science that shake up traditional notions of the self:

Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them
wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

Brain Scan Can Read Your Thoughts
news.discovery.com/tech/brain-scan-mind-reading.html

Non-conscious perception - blindsight
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

I’m sure these sorts of studies are not news to you, and there are better articles than the second one, which you can consult. The questions that arise are the same:

Do they reinforce the belief that we have an immaterial soul?

Do they suggest that our thoughts have a material basis? (Tonyrey take note!)

These studies merely confirm that the mind and brain are related. Conjunction does not entail causality! It is not self-evident that our **intangible **thoughts can be equated with, or caused by, **tangible **electrical impulses. There is plenty of evidence that our thoughts can produce effects on the body rather than be produced by the body.

Do we behave as if we are robots controlled by physical events or do we act as if **we **can control physical events? Your answer is revealing…

 

[Calgar]

Side note, I’ve got little experience with practicing Catholics. I am in Southern Baptist territory here.

That doesn’t really narrow it down a lot. We’ve got a pretty strong presence worldwide.

Don’t let the “southern” in our name fool you.

 

[Sair]

These studies merely confirm that the mind and brain are related. Conjunction does not entail causality! It is not self-evident that our **intangible **thoughts can be equated with, or caused by, **tangible **electrical impulses. There is plenty of evidence that our thoughts can produce effects on the body rather than be produced by the body.

What, exactly, are ‘intangible’ thoughts? The ones we’re not aware of, whatever they may be? Just because we can’t hold something, doesn’t mean it’s not physical. We can’t touch gravity either, but that’s hardly an undetectable force in our world. After all, if thoughts, as such, have an effect upon our physical bodies, how are thoughts not physical?

Do we behave as if we are robots controlled by physical events or do we act as if **we **can control physical events? Your answer is revealing…

Well, the honest answer to that would be a bit of both - but in the latter, we are probably more arrogant…

 

[Sair]

**How **can tangible factors have insight into intangible facts?

What are intangible facts?

On the contrary. They are obviously linked. The fact remains that you have leapt from “physical properties” to “we” and from plural to singular and tangible to intangible. What is the source of unity, i.e. the unifying factor?

Why must there be a single unifying factor? Why not a collection of unifying phenomena, such as the neural connections in our brains and nervous systems?

A trend is an inadequate basis for a generalisation about the nature of reality - especially in view of the fact that science presupposes a rational mind.

Science only presupposes an ability to discern cause and effect, and that the universe broadly operates along such lines.

Do cause-and-effect relationships have insight?

Why not predictive power, if specific cause-and-effect relationships can be stored as information in our neural pathways? What do you imagine ‘insight’ is, if not perception and analysis? These are functions some people’s brains can readily perform.

It may equally well be an overestimate!

Of course - but why assume it is one or the other when we still don’t know everything there is to know about physical reality? Why block off an entire area of enquiry because you don’t wish to be disabused of your supernatural beliefs?

What are the others?

Surely you realise that sensory (name removed by moderator)ut is more complex than you paint it - our senses are all tied in to neural networks. And if you have a stomach ache or a headache, for example, which of the particular senses you listed perceives it? If I feel joy or sadness, how do I put these down to specific senses? And how, by the same token, do I call these things intangible when they affect my whole being?

Shaped but not fully determined unless you relinquish all ability to control yourself…

Assuming that we are fully controlled by external factors is the same as assuming that the physical structures and forces that make up our bodies and brains are unable to exert influence in the physical world. Seems a little silly to think so.

Since we do many things without making choices it possible that we never make choices - which is the logical conclusion if all our activity has physical causes.

That is only logical if you assume that the choice-making entity, the ‘we’, is separable from our physical being.

The onus is on **both **sides to justify their position. No one has privileged insight into the nature of reality.

The nature of reality? You are assuming reality has two natures.

“A human being” is not generally equated with “a human body”. You need to explain why you consider yourself to be a rational entity rather than a collection of irrational organs.

Did no-one explain to you that all our organs work in concert?

Why are you different from a computer which is unaware of what it is doing?

I don’t know that computers are completely unaware of what they are doing - they are able to perceive remarkably fine detail, all things considered. However, they are nowhere near the complexity of brains - be they fish, reptile or mammal. If computer programmers and engineers ever catch up to 3 billion years of neural evolution, we might get closer to understanding how consciousness arises from physical forces. However, I think studying actual brains is potentially a more fruitful means of inquiry…

Ironically your view disposes of subjective morality altogether because it turns everything into objective things!

Perhaps it does, but from your perspective, you’ll still have to justify how morality exists independently of the complexity of human perception…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That doesn’t really narrow it down a lot. We’ve got a pretty strong presence worldwide.

Don’t let the “southern” in our name fool you.

I’ve heard. But those I know that identify themselves as Catholic don’t seem to have behaviours or views that are consistent with my understanding of Catholicism. To name a few significant attributes of those I know that stand apart from what I’ve seen expressed in this forum:

• both the married and unmarried make use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy
• they see abortion as appropriate for some situation
• gay marriage is seen as a non-issue

There has been verbal acknowledgments that their views are different from those of the teachings of their church. I’ve also found there to be a significant difference in familiarity with the bible among those in this forum and those that I know. It is as though the bible is a book that they’ve heard of but have never read. I’m not sure what to make of that.

There’s also a few people I know that used to be Catholic but have transitioned out of it into other classifications (nondenominational Christian, spiritual but non-religious and atheists). I don’t think those that I know that identify (or had identified) as Catholic are the most idea set of people from which to learn about Catholicism. That’s why I say I have little experience with practicing Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s why I say I have little experience with practicing Catholics.

It might be hard to find some.

Again, best to judge Catholicism by her teachings, rather than by Catholics. :sad_yes:

 

[John21652]

Perhaps it does, but from your perspective, you’ll still have to justify how morality exists independently of the complexity of human perception…

If you believe in God, the explanation is moot.

If you don’t believe in God, then morality cannot exist independently of the complexity of human perception. In fact, there is no need for it to exist at all. Morality is nothing more than rules for living in the company of other people. The complexity of human perception is how the objectivity of morality is arrived at. It is discerned using the very neurological complexities you write of. Considering how human nature itself is a part of the discernment process, then if there are no humans and no complex nuerological processes, then morality ceases to exist. In fact, there is no need of it.

If you do believe in God, then, regardless of the existence or otherwise of complex nuerological processes, God is the repository of objective morality.

Before you go “poof” and disappear out of existence, taking your complex nuerological processes with you, you should be able to discern the existence of God as the ultimate object of morality. If you can’t, well, your complex nuerological processes weren’t used correctly, or you just didn’t live long enough!