Right, that's my point.
Grim: "So what
Grim: "By talking in terms of codes and authorities you are implying absolutes
No, I'm not implying absolutes. Codes can be flexible and account for relative interpretations. Authority can be of the qualitative type, subjective and not absolute.
Grim: "Subjectivity matters little when you are being compared to a code by an authority
If the authority is a group of your peers(a very large group), which is the only option concerning morality, they base the codes on subjective grounds and constructed with reason. The inherent flaws of subjectivity aside, it's the only option.
Grim: "The fact is that even if subjectivity is inevitable, and it is, we cannot rely on evolutionary theory or a biological explanation for external objectification of right and wrong, even though highly determinate, evolutionary morality is inherently contradictory when compared to the expectations of modern society."
That's why I disagreed with Robert about evolution being an external authority. If anything, it's internal. Even then I'm not sure I'd call it an authority. I said more or less the exact same thing above. Are you confusing my position with Roberts? When you mention evolutionary morality being at odds with society's expectations, I agree. We've evolved the mechanism by which to follow morale standards(if you don't like the word codes). Society's expectations are those standards. The in-group and out-group comparison is a great example of this disjunction.
Grim: "Since we can not completely dismiss the metaphysical effect we all feel it must be within our understanding as a real and functional expression, while no one can deny the reality of physical impulses."
My opinion is that the metaphysical effects we feel are higher order manifestations of neuronal activity. We call these effects metaphysical due to our inability to understand how the brain works in a higher level complexity. What precisely do you consider metaphysical? Are the thoughts that flow through my head while typing this response metaphysical? There's no reason to think this is anything other than neuronal activity, albeit structured in an extremely organized way similar to computer processors, so that information is deliberated.
Grim: "However, since society as a notion is more metaphysical than deterministic (evolutionary) it is much more useful in moral terms to speak of our abstract developments rather than our physical ones
Read this in full if you haven't run across it yet, it's interesting:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... popper.htm
Grim: "It is no good to say that evolution gave us the impulses and capacity for moral behavior because nature as evolution no longer exists within us
Nature as evolution no longer exists within us? I'm not sure I follow. I stated before that I didn't really agree with evolution being the authority, since it's a process. What evolution has produced, us humans, are vessels with moral capacity due to the processes of evolution that created us.
Here's an overview of "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer. His 'provisional morality' framework is very compelling and I think has more truth to it than other explanations of morality. It mentions how evolution has given us moral impulses and capacity.
Grim: "In the same way that it is no good to claim that an appeal to reason will create compromise to our evolutionary biological capacities for impulse as reason its self is physical and what we understand is only an interpretation
Are you saying we can't use reason to overcome our evolved impulses? What of contraceptives? Our desire for sex is in order to reproduce, but using our brains we've derailed the objective of this impulse. That there are exceptions doesn't make a case against it.
Grim: "I cannot deny that we have evolved to be as we are today, but I can deny that we are solely the products of evolution rather than each individually the result of it.
That's why I say moral standards are primarily developed using reason. Reasoning people have done in the past, if popularized, is part of our collective knowledge. I'm not saying that our knowledge is a product of evolution, if that's what you're inferring. I'm saying our capacity for and tendency to abide by moral standards is what has evolved, not the moral standards themselves. Yet both are necessary for a full accounting of morality.