Dawkins Believes In Objective Morality?!

Does Richard Dawkins believe in an objective standard for morality?

[Chidds]

I'm not sure if Richard Dawkins believes in an objective morality. If we are to analyse this clip in isolation, what Dawkins said is there is kind of an agreement of what is right and what is wrong. It is not explicit, but it seems like a safe assumption to assume he is talking about among humans. If correct, what Dawkins says also lines up with morals through human biological essentialism. In other words, humans promote certain behaviours and reject others because it is in our nature to do so. The evolutionary explanation for moral behaviours being innate in us is humans evolved such behaviours because they favoured the propagation of the population. Theistic universal morality, often referred to as objective morality, is a concept that goes beyond mere human nature. It is something that supposedly applies to all moral agents, unlike human nature, such an objective morality is not substantiated.

[AntiGamer-devp]

Well, I'm a moral realist in the sense that I think a Phillips head screwdriver is superior to a flathead screwdriver in unscrewing Phillips head screws. I could be wrong about it, but we could test this in a controlled setting with two control groups and see who manages to do a superior job (ex: strips the fewest screws). My bet is on the people with Phillips head screws doing a superior job, but even if I lose the bet, it still means one was more productive than the other.

In a similar sense, if we construct two hypothetical societies: A which values treating others well, and B which doesn't, my bet is on A to do a better job of flourishing (less crime, fewer civil wars, etc). But even if I'm wrong and B turns out to be the superior one, there was still a superior one and that would still justify my realist position from my perspective. I don't have to be correct in all my beliefs related to ethics and morals to be correct about the idea that one set can yield a superior, more cooperative, more harmonious society than the other even if I mistakenly chose the wrong one.

[jesperkjaer]

Because it's generally considered to be to the benefit of all.
It doesn't originate in christianity so save your breath.

[andrewcothran]

As a skeptic I have to say it is very possible that the golden rule came from God. And it's possible it was just and agreed ideal that is mutually beneficial with no grounding in anything. A similar notion exists with a man made law . Not every law makes sense and is something grounded in nothing.

[cygnusustus]

A "wide-spread principle" is not an objective standard.
Try again.