The atrocity in Norway highlights some profound questions about moral law that are important in the discussion about atheism and theism. I assert that only theism is consistent with the existence of objective moral law.
I suspect that some atheists have a problem understanding what I mean by "objective" moral law.
I mean moral law that:
1) Exists
2) Was not made by humans
3) Can be obeyed or disobeyed by humans.
If we define evil as defective 'mirror neurons', or a particularly unpleasant evolutionary adaptation, we mean that evil is subjective, and exists only in our minds. Of course, a subjective moral law can be widely and even universally held, but it has no reality independent of human minds.
So here's a question that gets to the heart of the issue:
Could something be evil, even if all human beings thought it was good?
If yes, then moral law is objective reality. If no, then moral law is entirely subjective.
Only theism offers an explanation for objective moral law. If atheism is true, then all moral law is just a matter of opinion, even the moral status of murdering children at a summer camp.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteIf atheists have trouble understanding what you mean by objective moral law, its because you have such a bizarre definition of 'objective' in this context, which most reasonable people would define as being:
'Undistorted by emotion or personal bias. Based on observable phenomena'.
Even if we accept your definition, it still doesn't mean morals were divinely implanted. It's like the Kalam Cosmological Argument applied to morals.
You're claiming that God implanted mirror neurons in humans to produce empathy resulting in moral behavior.
I say humans evolved to have highly developed mirror neurons to have high degrees of empathy. Groups with more empathy did better than groups without, because they shared better, weren't broken apart by killings and other violence.
The only way you can distinguish the two possibilities is to prove the existence of a god. So why don't you do that?
I personally use objective moral laws to mean that they are beneficial on rational grounds. The prohibition of murder obviously falls in this category.
I use subjective moral laws to mean arbitrary, of no rational benefit. Most of the commandments of Deuteronomy (which Jesus had said he had come to change not one part of) are of this sort, such as women raped in the city are to be stoned with the guilty man, but not if she had been raped in the fields, working on the dubious logic that she should have called out for help in the city, so therefore she's guilty of adultery. Most of the moral law in the OT is similarly arbitrary, or harsh or both.
How do you decide what is moral law? You obviously don't take the all the laws of the Bible. Even adopting your definitions of objective/subjective, you've decided yourself what laws to follow and what not to. So by your definition, you're subjective, not objective.
So you end up with a system where every single person thinks that they have found objective morality without having reasonable means to compare their findings except for subjective interpretation of Bronze Age mythology. So we are not even back to square one, where are back to the knowledge of the Bronze Age.
ReplyDeleteThen the corollary of your finding comes into play - people who think they have found objective morality do something "objectively good" even if all human beings think it is evil.
Yes, Mike, why do you choose to disobey Leviticus 19:27?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteYes. I think it could STILL be evil.
The point you raise is a very important one, and it is of definitions.
Materialists thinkers have a much more limited use of their terminology, as all metaphysical and existential concepts are stripped from the meanings of descriptives and even titles (like 'Doctor' for an abortionist). It is a tax of their dogma. Flat earth syndrome.
'Objectivity' Does not really exist, so a new 'objectivity-lite' is designed for the tricky gaps, like morality.
The idea is pruned to fit the concept. I could make a rather tired comparison to Orwell or Kafka, but I suspect your readers will get my gist.
Certainly these GNU Atheist are subjective in their morality. But, as you can see from the comments it is a sore spot. Sore spots, as in this case, can often be weak spots in an argument.
Well pointed out, Dr. Egnor.
@bach: MORE tautology? MORE kin selection? And how about the Doctor's question? ["Could something be evil, even if all human beings thought it was good?"] Care to answer that? Maybe you could even imagine NO human beings? Could something be Evil even then, Bach?
@oleg: Mike is a Christian. Leviticus is an OT book. You really need to learn a bit more about the religions (and periods) you wish to bash.
@bachfiend, Anonymous, and oleg:
ReplyDeleteThe question as to how we know just what objective moral law is is a good question, for another post.
The question now is this:
'Could something be evil, even if all human beings thought it was good?'
It's a yes or no question. I say yes.
Why is it so hard for you to answer it?
I say humans evolved to have highly developed mirror neurons to have high degrees of empathy. Groups with more empathy did better than groups without, because they shared better, weren't broken apart by killings and other violence.
ReplyDeleteYes, and by the same token, they have evolved the ability to ignore their mirror neurons. So, which of these two capabilities infused by evolution is moral? And which immoral? Do you take a head count to see what most people do and call that moral? If so, once again atheism becomes immoral under your definition.
Groups guided by religion have done quite well in the reproduction sweepstakes. Groups guided by atheism, not so much, since they have reproduced in lesser numbers, that is, when they are not being culled by Final Solutions, Terrors, Great Leaps Forward, and Five Year Plans.
Again, by your won standards, how is it that atheism is not immoral?
Easy questions both. Love to see the Atheist answers!
ReplyDeleteHere's another thought on Bachfiends quote:
["I say humans evolved to have highly developed mirror neurons to have high degrees of empathy. Groups with more empathy did better than groups without, because they shared better, weren't broken apart by killings and other violence."]
Why is it 'empathy' and 'sharing' should work better than selfish promotion. I do not mean practically, obviously. We all know it does. You present this as a proof, not an observation. So in that spirit, I ask you Bach, why should it be in the world/universe that cooperation works better for living organisms than selfish competition? Rocks do not empathize in order to share matter. Rape can result in reproduction. Why cooperate with you when I can kill you, take your things, and breed with your females. Kin selection again?
Dead peoples proteins benefiting from future descendants of siblings and cousins?
That stuff is too New Age and superstitious for me, and I am a theist who believes in powers beyond nature.
I really don't get how GNU Atheist/ bright types can even entertain these notions of communicating, oracular proteins.
You would think it was antithetical to their views as Materialists, no?
Perhaps you could explain that to us primitive 'acolytes', bach?
'Could something be evil, even if all human beings thought it was good?'
ReplyDeleteI can't answer for all "GNU Atheists" - whoever that is - but personally, I will answer: no, I do not see any evidence for that. There is no objective, measurable morality in the same sense that there is the objective force of gravity.
But I fail to see how uncountable mutually exclusive and internally contradicting interpretations of ancient texts are evidence for objective morality.
Leviticus is an OT book. You really need to learn a bit more about the religions (and periods) you wish to bash.
So are you of the opinion than none of the laws in the old testaments apply?
Anon wrote:
ReplyDeleteSo are you of the opinion than none of the laws in the old testaments apply?
I assume you are directing that question at me, Anon? Or is it a general question on Christian theology? Do you ask me directly, or is that an admission of ignorance?
I will address it directly: I am suggesting that I, (and Dr Egnor) are NOT Levites, or Jews living in the Bronze Age under the Old Covenant. I am also suggesting that the Atheist responders attempting to use scripture in an argument against a specific religion should learn something about the work's weight, meaning, and context before incorporating into their anti-sermons.
It would make them seem more like educated fools, instead of semi-educated or simply ignorant fools. But perhaps therein lies the issue(s)?
@crusaderex: Forgive me (I'm sure you can) when I don't know which particular subset of "objective rules of morality" you two choose to believe in.
ReplyDeleteFrom your profile picture I can see that you in fact do not follow this particular rule and wanted to know why.
Your answer is not particularly enlightening - why aren't you a Levite? Did the objective laws of morality change since the Bronze Age? Did they change since the time of Jesus?
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteExodus 20:2-17 is also part of the Old Testament. How do you decide which parts you follow strictly and which you ignore?
Anon,
ReplyDeleteNothing to forgive. Your ignorance of my personal choices and beliefs is no offence to me. I was simply clarifying my position.
I do wonder, though, why you suggest 'I'm sure you can'[forgive]
How can you be sure, when so utterly ignorant of my position at the same time? Perhaps your apology is faux, in the same way the Leviticus argument is.
You defend a weak gap in your argument with distraction. Understandable, but obvious.
Something else that you claim does NOT exist is evident. A common hiccough for Atheism.
One atheist explains it away with tautologies about mirror neurons developing, and another says insists it does not exist and wants to talk about grooming rules for 15-6th century BC Levites. What is this meritorious subject? Morality! Simple, every day morals.
Anon,
As for the theological aspects of that specific tract of being applicable to my profile picture, you may wish to note that image is not me.
Although I do groom both my beard and hair to stunningly attractive levels, that image is an art rendering of Andreus Teuber as Mephistopheles, from the 1967 Burton production of 'Doctor Faustus.'
An excellent old stage-film.
Comrade Oleg,
ReplyDeleteThis thread is not about the Hebrew scriptures, Moses, or Christian Canon.
It is about objective morality. The doctor's question was direct.
Why not answer it?
How Christians, Jews, or others choose which moral paths to follow, and determine the weight (and origin) of these teachings, records, and stories that make up the Old Testament is a matter of theological record. There are volumes and libraries filled with such philosophy and theology.
You don't need me or this forum to discover the reasoning behind those choices. You need an education on them, and that is beyond my means.
But here is a question you can answer, Comrade Citizen Oleg:
"Could something be evil, even if all human beings thought it was good?"
Well, could it?
Well I suppose that! If God is, and it is a personal being that have commanded it's creation or part of it to have moral values; and God is all Good... Than absolutely not XD, we ought see good things and bad things, no doubt about it.
ReplyDeleteTaking a naturalistic approach for the matter. I would say that we have no choice but say that; there is no TRUE good and evil, and what the guy did in Norway was just right to some and wrong to others, after all, my morality is the product of my brain's chemical reactions and added with the fact that most likely it has all been chemically determined... the guy's body did just what the chemical reaction in his brain made his body do I suppose.
So in the end... in naturalism ??? that question doesn't even make sense to ask since being moral pre-supposes free will... which doesn't freaking exist according to a fully determined naturalistic "dynamic" of the brain.
Edward,
ReplyDeleteIsn't 'naturalist' a nice word for nudists? Well, they are at least nicer to imagine with my imaginary imagination, nested within an illusory consciousness :P
You are referring to materialistic / atheistic thinking Edward when you use the term 'naturalist', correct?
If so, I think you accurately describe their position. No free will, no choice, no good, no evil, no purpose.
Crusade... Check Wikipedia for Philophical naturalism XD... and you will get what I am referring too.
ReplyDeleteOf course Naturalism and materialism arreee really like brothers XD and both lead towards atheism.
But naturalism says, that there is no miracle because everything in our world has rules to it... including you and I; I suppose.
AND ... there is only Nature, so there is no Super natural... even though I can't think of way to define nature to begin with XD.... ahahhaa makes me feel like when someone defends naturalism he is saying: "I believing there is only something which I cannot define!!! beotch!!!"
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteNot sure what triggered the comrade greetings all of a sudden. Did my question upset you or something? If you don't know how to answer it, just admit that you don't know.
As to Mike's question in the opening post, it makes no sense. Asking it assumes that one might be able to get an answer to it. But how? It's not like Christians have access to God's opinion. All they can do is interpret some old writings. And if all Christians agree that something is not evil, who will tell them otherwise?
This thread is not about the Hebrew scriptures, Moses, or Christian Canon.
ReplyDeleteIt is about objective morality.
These two subjects are related. The fact that anyone can choose follow mutually exclusive and internally contradicting scriptures is at odds with the idea that there is objective morality. If there was, you could prove that the specific interpretation of the set of rules that you follow is more than a subjective decision but the result of a objectively verifiable process.
Oleg pre-supposes that all Christians can do is read a book...
ReplyDeleteis that really all there is to it ???
Well Maybe God would tell them otherwise ... I mean I am pretty sure that some things in morality could be considered self-evident; Or that being moral is just part of being human.
I mean if moral exists, I can't say that materialism or naturalism is true, because they could not provide a cohesion among them. It would be like saying that I am Nihilist and believing in an ultimate purpose for live XD or just like in the movie Born to Kill: Having a piece symbol while killing people!
So I wonder, how do you think that moral facts are suppose to look like, and where we are suppose to find them ????
if you want to impose a epistemological Barrier at the very beginning I think that is well within the parameters of a good discussion n_n
=_= But if you sir would like to raise a ontological barrier, it is up to you to prove the existence of no other realm but yours!!!
n_n hehe
Well Anonymous do you mind showing your case for contractions ???
ReplyDelete* think for the bright side... I know nothing about the bible so you can try to trick me!!! *
@Edward: pick your favorite.
ReplyDeleteohhhh the Strawbook of the Sceptics... shhhiiittt ... let's see what there is here...
ReplyDeleteOleg,
ReplyDeletePerhaps I have mistaken you for someone else? I thought it was you who defended Soviet Advances in science and culture etc in previous convos?
That was the reasoning behind the 'comrade' barb. If misplace, you have my apologies.
It was made in good fun.
Now, as for your response (finally), I thank you.
You wrote:
"All they can do is interpret some old writings."
Your counter is full of materialistic suppositions, and this line gives away the game. You presume/assume there is no God, and no means to connect or understand Him, hence the 'old writings' to interp are there is.
What did you miss? Just the whole point!
You suggest if "Christians agree that something is not evil, who will tell them otherwise?"
You forgot about other intelligences. God for example?
Duh...
Surely you can see here how your ideology is preventing you from even entertaining the possibility of an external force on nature.
While materialism can exist within my world view, anything beyond the material is not even a consideration for you. You are WILLINGLY blind to it.
Whether you concede or not, Oleg, the readers will note you it is not that question that makes no sense- or even that the question is all that complicated - but rather that it is YOU who are unable to make sense of it.
You are being limited in your ability to respond by DOGMA. Open your mind a bit, it's a nice big universe out here!
So the first one we have 300 and 800 hundred contraction.
ReplyDeleteNow if the Bible was a History book which in my view it is not, I would be majorly pissed at pissed at this, but the number in itself... does it undermine a person's faith or the possible teaching in the book ??? Well I don't know, I seriously don't think so...
Without saying that the contraction happens in two different books XD phew! imagine if was in the same book XD!!!
So I guess this is evidence that the BIble is not a History book, at least not OUR standard History book. Cool, I agree.
Oh just in case you might scream about inerrance... or whatever way I am suppose to write this, I will say that I don't believe that the Bible is a History book and that is flawless as an account of History. What I do believe ever since I was a kid is that, this is a spiritual book, meant to find spiritual answers or something like that.
* YEAH well aware about those who claim that the Bible is perfect in every way, but maybe I just haven't seem any reason to claim that so I am sorry I cannot defend their position *
Edward,
ReplyDeleteIf, as you say, "some things in morality could be considered self-evident," why did God have to go through the trouble of making the tablets and giving them to Moses? Shouldn't those ten commandments be self-evident?
Well put, Edward.
ReplyDelete...and the line about naturalism was a joke. I understood your point, and it is well made.
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteIf the existence of objective morality, as defined in Mike's opening question, hinges on the belief in God, surely this undermines the objectivity part? If morality exists objectively, one should be able to test it regardless of people's opinions.
As to my defense of the Soviet science, physics in particular, I stand by it. Mike's rant was pretty silly.
ReplyDeleteOleg wrote:
ReplyDelete"... why did God have to go through the trouble of making the tablets and giving them to Moses?"
So materialists would have even more things they could touch, taste, see, smell, even hear - and then promptly deny the existence of! JK
I am being silly, but so are you right? You're not honestly asking why self evident truths would be written down in a charter? BY GOD?
You wrote:
ReplyDelete"All they can do is interpret some old writings."
Your counter is full of materialistic suppositions, and this line gives away the game. You presume/assume there is no God, and no means to connect or understand Him, hence the 'old writings' to interp are there is.
This has nothing to do with materialism but with standards of proof. Private telepathic communications are by definition not objective.
After all ... what was Abraham justified by!!!!
ReplyDeleteWell funny enough ... it says works in both places, and in the Bible I have here... there is no word such as faith.
And funny enough, their 3 edition standard is all of a sudden dropped ... awww man!
Anyway I believe it says justified by its works which .... where based on his Faith in God hmmm Gonna have to read all the previous chapters now =_=...
...
...
...
Yeah ... Apparently it follows like I said. Well if I am not mistaken much of what Abraham did because he had A GREAT faith on God, but what is this chapter trying to justify...
I think ... it is justified that Jesus and Abraham were justified by the works which were based on their faith in God....
Can a good Christian help please XD ??? u_u I knew I should have went to sunday school more often!!!
________________________
Well onto the contraction, I really think it is just a word problem really. If the story that I remember of Abraham is accurate, then deep down is like he was justified by faith and by his works. but since there is this whole problem with translations and stuff like that, I would have to get many different Bibles to check the overall meaning.
Anyway, in terms of meaning I think that the contraction doesn't really exist, what is a probably some sloppy translation problem.
Anyway I really missed the many versions thing they did in the last "contradiction".
@oleg
ReplyDeleteWell, aren't humans creatures full of problems ???
aren't we filled doubt, need for purpose, moral problems ???
I mean even a self evident truth can eventually become nothing more a truth among all other truths.
So I think that is why the tablets were there... to help. Don't you think so ?
Exactly, crusadeREX. Why would anyone write things down if they were self-evident? And not only write them down but command the people to obey them? Perhaps they weren't self-evident? Perhaps people did steal and murder and covet their neighbor's wife without giving it pause?
ReplyDeleteIf morality exists objectively, one should be able to test it regardless of people's opinions.
ReplyDelete_____________________
Well Oleg say no more !!! what Test would that be ???
* and ... of course, argumenting about how objetive thing are by definition testable is wrong ... sorry. Logic is objective. Testable ??? hmmmm good freaking question! surely not by science, because that would be argumenting in circles.
Or take Cause and effect ... not testable ... but objetive. Sorry such connection does not seem to exist, at least in our world *
You can always say that in the multiverse it does infinite times and that you and I were married infinite times as well ... that would pretty destroy my argument XD!
@Edward: you can compare different bibles with this tool
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with materialism but with standards of proof. Private telepathic communications are by definition not objective.
ReplyDelete____________________________
Negative sir... Telepathy is not demonstrable while it occurs with a person, the same way I can not demonstrate that you are thinking or feeling anything right now.
What we really do is infer. if telepathy is occuring it's effects can be tested such as, DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM THINKING? if the person gets it right many times, we have a good case of telepathy or a very well portrayed hoax XD...
but deep down I have no way to show for real what Telepathy is.
Anyway, about morality. If moral facts exist, there could be many ways to acquire such knowledge, going from a more non-super-natural approach, instinct could be a form of knowing.
Or the feeling that is produced by the perception of an action could also be considered as a possible way to do it.
Now of course as an Universal thing, i think we are just stuck with statistics, and philosophy.
Oh hey Anonymous ... didn't saw the last one there.
ReplyDeleteYeah I will use it
@Edward: We assume logic and causality to be true axiomatically since any discussion about objectivity would be meaningless otherwise.
ReplyDeleteRegarding telepathy: I'm not arguing the existence or non-existence of telepathy, I'm just saying that you can't claim something is objectively true because a voice in your head tells you it is.
Oh the Abraham son thing.
ReplyDeleteyou do know that God promises Abraham a Son... Abraham couldn't wait for God anymore and he made a son with his slave or... damn... servant, the Jews had a whole different Idea for "slavery".
Well his first son that was not the son God promised him * His wife couls not bare children * became in theory what we now call Arabs. And the Son Isaac I think, which was the God given Son was the one almost sacrificed on the mountains to test how much faith Abraham had in God * yeahh God is tough when He wants to *
Well that is not a contractions is just bad understanding of the story that is all XD
DUUUUUDE seriously XD ... 458 contractions XD.... what the heck... u_u aww man this will take ages... I rather read the Bible and get some notes than keeop doing this....
T_T T_T damn you Anonymous
We assume logic and causality to be true axiomatically since any discussion about objectivity would be meaningless otherwise.
ReplyDeleteRegarding telepathy: I'm not arguing the existence or non-existence of telepathy, I'm just saying that you can't claim something is objectively true because a voice in your head tells you it is.
___________________________________
Like a Said... The voice in your head is no necessarily the only way to find Morality.
We could, EVEN use Reason, like in consequentialism where I infer that something is bad because generates bad results.
So it sorts of becomes the problem. If they do exist, we would have to work with a possible question, where are they, and how can we find them * and some other stuff *
Now I do not disagree with you that for instance, is sort of subjective to say that the Bible is the key to morality. because I understand your point of view, I am asking too much of you! * as in I am asking you to believe what I believe *
But the problem is... what if it is Right! What if correct interpretation of the Bible could generate that objective Ethics we look?
___________________
About the voice in our heads XD... I haven't heard any voice, but who knows... * although... I really wonder if a voice in a person's head could be God's...*
well anyway , like a said, there are ways is just that none of them are so cute and pretty likes a good and old mathematical formula.
@Edward: while it would be a good practice to investigate these contradictions on your own, there are often, but not always, links to "christian responses" at the bottom of the page, some of which are very entertaining. It seems that some Christians seem to argue that Jesus would have stoned the famous adulterous woman to death if only the man was present...
ReplyDeleteJudging by the number of comments this post has received, kudos Dr. Egnor! You have brought a subject that is anathema to atheists.
ReplyDeleteFor those concerned, a one-liner is more effective and has much more chances of being read than an rant that goes on forever...
If you cannot express your idea in one phrase, you need to keep working on it...
Well wouldn't that fall in that whole New Convenant thing ??? * no ... no the Halo race *
ReplyDeleteOkay ... I see your point XD. hmmm Don't know why but it almost sound like Jesus is a lawyer XD... seriously ??? he just found the gap and said YAY...
Now comeing to think of it... was the New Convenant after Jesus died ??? I think so right O_O.
Anyway, Jesus Himself said that the Old testament was now fullfiled, and that a new "era" has arrived. I think he would not, at least according to the logic of his preachings
Pepe... keeping working on it! Is too big dude XD
ReplyDeleteOK,
ReplyDeleteI haven't answered the question because it's meaningless. 'Could something be evil, even if all human beings thought it good?'. When I was a medical student, and multiple choice questions was the standard method of testing our knowledge, we were taught that alternatives with 'all', 'always' and 'never' (and similar absolute words) were NEVER (or hardly ever) the correct answer, so they could be immediately be eliminated.
With 7 billion people, you will never get agreement from ALL the human beings, so the the answer to the question is a firm 'NO'.
I can't think of anything that would fit the question. Please provide an example.
The only possibility I can think of was the viewpoint in the past that the Earth had limitless resources, provided just for us to use as we like, with no downside if we overexploit them. The near extinction of whales is one that occurs to me. The current management of the world's fisheries to collapse is another.
I'd call the current economy with its stress on continuous economic growth as being evil. The idea that we can continue consume increasing physical resources on a finite planet as madness. The idea that we can increase our happiness by amassing more physical goods (which is a nonsense anyway) is evil, particularly when it will deprive our descendants of a reasonable standard of living.
Then again, not all humans think that that's good.
Can the Planet be round when all people thought it to be Flat ???
ReplyDeletethe same way that further knowledge and inquiry revealed to us that our world is round, you and I and Doc Egg can definately find that Objective Ethics.
by the way Bach you refuted yourself dude... you said that propositions with "never" are wrong by statistical inference I suppose... but you said that we will never... find that agreement O_O!
Eduardo,
ReplyDeleteI qualified myself by adding hardly ever to never. Alternatives with never can be eliminated immediately because it saves time for pondering which of the remaining choices are true. If they turn out to be false, then you go back to the alternatives with never etc. It's just a time saving method.
My point remains. With 7 billion humans, it's impossible to have ALL agree on anything. Let alone having all the approximately 100 billion humans who have lived or are living agreevon anything too.
A lot of people today are still foolish enough to think that the Earth is a sphere, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
It is of course an oblate spheroid.
ops failed to translate my name XD
ReplyDeletePrecise to the max you sir XD
I see your point, it is just that it makes me remind of something I use to hear... never say never because we always end up using never or always or something like that.
Classic avoidance.
ReplyDelete'I can't answer, there is no answer, 7 billion people will never agree, the question makes no sense...'
Wow! You'd think these folks were under enemy interrogation and trying not to reveal their allies location, not holding a conversation on morality.
At least some of them gave us name, rank, and serial number.
Well done, Dr Egnor.
As Pepe noted, this one touched a sore spot!
Whenever you get Atheists ranting on about scripture like this, it is akin to writhing in ideological agony. You have forced them to frenzy with a single question.
Kudos.
I don't see what the big deal is.
ReplyDelete"Could something be evil even if all human beings thought it was good?"
Since "evil" is a human construct, if all human beings thought it was good, then the answer is no, it could not be evil. It's possible that all human beings thought something was good and it could then turn out to be a really stupid idea, but that wouldn't amount to "evil" necessarily.
You could bring God into the picture, saying that God is/represents/knows objective morality, but in that case you'd be bringing two unknown and unsupportable factors into the mix.
There is no objective morality that exists outside of human assessment. If you kill off all humans, no morality remains, same as any other concepts of human origin (say, democracy, mathematics).
(One could extend that to unknown alien life forms, I suppose. But the point remains more or less the same.)