The strongest instinct of all living things has always been the instinct of survival. It is this basic instinct that gave rise to the term, survival of the fittest, the need to survive even at the expense of others. But as man continued to evolve and reproduce, he realized that he had to care for his progeny whether they were fit for survival or not; his species must have to survive, they must never go extinct. At first this idea was restricted to his immediate family; he will steal and plunder from other families in order to keep his family moving and surviving. Later he realized that to survive better, he had to co-operate with other families in order to fend off predators, both from wild animals and other stronger human colonies. To survive with other human colonies, there had to be some sort of symbiotic relationship; Common sense demanded it, necessity demanded that no man will have to work and another person will benefit. THIS made the idea of stealing evil, it didn’t take any divine being to make it known to the primitive man that since he wouldn’t want his crops to be eaten by another man, therefore he should not go about stealing that of his neighbor and that in order to gain the continued trust and help of his neighbor then he had to ensure his happiness also. Still though, stronger men always stole and tried to get away with it but as man’s brain continued to evolve, he had to devise more efficient means of curbing and curtailing the excesses of the inevitable miscreants of society. This gave rise to the fact that different societies always had their ideas of morality that somehow always matched with their culture, locality and time. Still though, the basic instinct of survival remained, nobody wants to be killed, we all want our offspring, our immediate family and by extension our particular society to survive. This is why each ancient tribe and race always felt superior and seeked to conquer the other in a bid to promote their own idea of morality.

What is morality? I will paraphrase Robert Green Ingersoll: “Morality is doing the best under the circumstance. What is the best? The sum of what will increase human happiness or at least reduce human suffering.”

Before Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two Apple Tablets , the indigenous people of India, China and the Aztecs already knew that murder, stealing and lying was detrimental to their society and therefore evil. Man’s knowledge and intellect has improved that is why we now frown on slavery. It can be argued that the slave masters of old somehow felt that their slaves were somewhat less than humans or at least less than their own race and therefore fit only for labour and abuse. This is why in the Jewish scriptures you can see that they felt it proper to only get their slaves from other tribes.

Morality has nothing to do with belief in a creator, there is no morality in “Believe in the Lord Jesus or perish” and there is no necessity of belief in “Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.” Both statements are mutually exclusive statements and you can do the former without doing the latter and vice versa, or even both without any form of contradiction whatsoever.

In conclusion, I believe that morality was and is a necessary condition for the survival of our species. It is the realization that we are actually the same species: black, white, Hispanic etc that we have had to set up some basic rules of survival to prevent the few miscreants and psychopaths from decimating the human race. Morality did not derive from any deity, else we would have had universal and timeless morality all through the ages. our morality is still evolving and what we consider normal today may be looked upon with revulsion by our children children. Happy SUNday

Mr Troll: The strongest instinct of all living things has always been the instinct of survival. It is this basic instinct that gave rise to the term, survival of the fittest, the need to survive even at the expense of others. But as man continued to evolve and reproduce, he realized that he had to care for his progeny whether they were fit for survival or not; his species must have to survive, they must never go extinct.

1.

Why should man be interested in the future extinction of the human race?

How does it affect anyone alive today, if, 200 years from now, mankind suddenly goes extinct - say from a meteor hit, for example?

2.

If you contend that it is man's rationality and bigger brain that leads to morals, then what explains the instinct of animals who also desperately protect their young, and their families?

What makes my dog desperately protect her puppies?

Does she do this because she is trying to raise an army to protect herself?

3.

If your argument holds up, then it leads to the inevitable conclusion that killing, stealing, and the like, are not intrinsically wrong, but that it only makes better group-survival strategic sense not to do these things.

As such, if I murder your wife today, I have not done anything intrinsically wrong - I have only done something that is not wise (i.e: f.oolish) and not in the tactical and strategic interest of group-survival.

Is f.oolishness therefore immoral?

4.

Still going with your logic - your logic would render expansionist wars moral and legitimate. Your logic would also render genocidal ethic cleansing moral and legitimate - for these are acts geared towards the survival, prosperity and well-being of a group.

This would render every form of foreign imperialism, colonialism, and slavery, morally worthy and legitimate.

Live and let live

Deep Sight:

1.

Why should man be interested in the future extinction of the human race?

bros, survival instinct inherent in all living things. we don't want to DIE!!!

How does it affect anyone alive today, if, 200 years from now, mankind suddenly goes extinct - say from a meteor hit, for example?

I don't really get this question. but if I may hazard a guess, i'll say that if we can do something to avert it, we would. still survival instinct, in this case, of our future offspring. you can rephrase the question if my answer was off point.

2.

If you contend that it is man's rationality and bigger brain that leads to morals, then what explains the instinct of animals who also desperately protect their young, and their families?

What makes my dog desperately protect her puppies?

Does she do this because she is trying to raise an army to protect herself?

if you read the beginning parts of my post, you would realize that I actually accounted for this. the primitive man did only this, bigger brains led him to think that group survival will be best. more complex brain lent him more complex thought process and more complex set of rules...morality.

3.

If your argument holds up, then it leads to the inevitable conclusion that killing, stealing, and the like, are not intrinsically wrong, but that it only makes better group-survival strategic sense not to do these things.

As such, if I murder your wife today, I have not done anything intrinsically wrong - I have only done something that is not wise (i.e: f.oolish) and not in the tactical and strategic interest of group-survival.

Is f.oolishness therefore immoral?

i'm afraid this is a strawman. now, my argument is that humans decided that those things were wrong. a lion kills, we don't say it has done something wrong, do we? even if we do say that, it will be based on our set of morals which has nothing to do with the lion. nothing in nature is intrinsically wrong or right. earthquakes are neither wrong or right, only how it affects us humans. yes if you murder my wife, you have not done anything intrinsically wrong, only wrong based on human moral standards of which you will be punished. i'm sure nobody will punish you if you kill a chicken today but ah! evolution says that you and a chicken.... . so in answer to to your question, some foolishness are in fact immoral. not all though, just those decided by us.

4.

Still going with your logic - your logic would render expansionist wars moral and legitimate. Your logic would also render genocidal ethic cleansing moral and legitimate - for these are acts geared towards the survival, prosperity and well-being of a group.

This would render every form of foreign imperialism, colonialism, and slavery, morally worthy and legitimate.

eh bros, where did you draw this conclusion from? you did see where I marked Culture, Locality and Time in different colours abi? I actually anticipated this question.

Well let's take it slowly then.

- - - > Do you think that there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with genocidal ethnic cleansing?

- - - > Do you think that there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with expansionist wars?

Please answer me these, and we take it from there.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:
Well let's take it slowly then.

- - - > Do you think that there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with genocidal ethnic cleansing?

- - - > Do you think that there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with expansionist wars?

Please answer me these, and we take it from there.

Thanks.

why are making me repeat myself self na?

Mr Troll: Nothing in nature is intrinsically wrong or right. earthquakes are neither wrong or right, only how it affects us humans. yes if you murder my wife, you have not done anything intrinsically wrong, only wrong based on human moral standards of which you will be punished. i'm sure nobody will punish you if you kill a chicken...you did see where I marked Culture, Locality and Time in different colours abi? I actually anticipated this question.

Very good.

You therefore have no right to be outraged at any "atrocity" - however grave the atrocity.

You have no right to be outraged at the rape, torture or amputation of little children, even. You say that this is NOT intrinsically immoral.

A scandalous statement, frankly.

Your only recourse is to say that it tactically and strategically is not in the interest of your society.

You can never be outraged at anything that is done - there is no basis for any moral outrage whatsoever.

Indeed - there is no such thing as an atrocity, in fact.

Well done. Your worldview is absolutely inspiring and lofty.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\- - - > Please look up the concepts of mala in se and mala prohibita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

You state, that there is no such thing as mala in se.

This is your position.

Deep Sight: Very good.

You therefore have no right to be outraged at any "atrocity" - however grave the atrocity.

You have no right to be outraged at the rape, torture or amputation of little children, even. You say that this is NOT intrinsically immoral.

A scandalous statement, frankly.

Your only recourse is to say that it tactically and strategically is not in the interest of your society.

You can never be outraged at anything that is done - there is no basis for any moral outrage whatsoever.

Indeed - there is no such thing as an atrocity, in fact.

Well done. Your worldview is absolutely inspiring and lofty.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\- - - > Please look up the concepts of mala in se and mala prohibita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

You state, that there is no such thing as mala in se.

This is your position.

as usual, you try to coat your strawmen in clever verbiage.

this is what I actually read from your link

wiki: The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community"

see, @bold. that is my accurate position. every other thing you wrote up there is simply silly. i'm a member of a civilized community, no?

Mr Troll: as usual, you try to coat your strawmen in clever verbiage.

this is what I actually read from your link
see, @bold. that is my accurate position. every other thing you wrote up there is simply silly. i'm a member of a civilized community, no?

You bold what you wish to bold - and ignore what you wish to ignore.

Same statement again - - - see my bold - - - >

The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community"

Contrast that with your statement - - - >

Nothing in nature is intrinsically wrong or right

I hope you can now see how your position contradicts the existence of mala in se.

The concept of mala in se devolves on the supposition that somethings are naturally and intrinsically evil.

Your declared position, is that nothing is naturally or intrinsically evil Your exact words.
_________________________________________
WARNING: Now, do not let us descend into a plaetonnish rigmarole over the words "as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community" - because that applies to every single thing we know and can say. For example, when you say there is no "natural evil", that too is a statement you can make as a product of the thinking of a civilized society. Everything we know and can discuss is a product of same. So it is a common denominator with all things that we observe, all things that can be discussed. We can only discuss things based on what we observe as members of an evolved society, so do not even go there.

This point is hammered home by the fact that BOTH mala in se and mala prohibita are "as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community" - which are your bold words!

So what makes them different? That is the cardinal point!
_________________________________________

To simplify the discussion -

1.

"Mala in se" - presupposes the existence of natural evil

Whereas -

Mr Troll, says that there is no natural evil.

___________
In case you don't know, mala in se means something that is evil in and of itself. And of course, this can still only be as we perceive it. (refer to warning on potential rigmarole above).
___________

2.

If nothing is intrinsically evil, then there are no atrocities. You would have no right to be morally outraged by any atrocity, however grave. You side-stepped this point. If a million children are rounded up and amputated and then killed, you should have no sense of moral outrage: rather you should only state mechanically that it is tactically and strategically not in the interest of group survival. Why do you avoid this point?

Deep Sight:

You bold what you wish to bold - and ignore what you wish to ignore.

same to you

Same statement again - - - see my bold - - - >



Contrast that with your statement - - - >



I hope you can now see how your position means contradicts the existence of mala in se.

The concept of mala in se devolved on the supposition that somethings are naturally and intrinsically evil.

Your declared position, is that nothing is intrinsically evil Your exact words.
_________________________________________
WARNING: Now, do not let us descend into a plaetonnish rigmarole over the words "as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community" - because that applies to every single thing we know and can say. For example, when you say there is no "natural evil", that too is a statement you can make as a product of the thinking of a civilized society. Everything we know and can discuss is a product of same. So it is a common denominator with all things that we observe, all things that can be discussed. We can only discuss things based on what we observe as members of an evolved society, so do not even go there.
_________________________________________

To simplify the discussion -

1.

"Mala in se" - presupposes the existence of natural evil

Whereas -

Mr Troll, says that there is no natural evil.

2.

If nothing is intrinsically evil, then there are no atrocities. You would have no right to be morally outraged by any atrocity, however grave. You side-stepped this point. If a million children are rounded up and amputated and then killed, you should have no sense of moral outrage: rather you should only state mechanically that it is tactically and strategically not in the interest of group survival. Why do you avoid this point?

your warning is redundant DS. how can you pretend not to understand what the definition clearly implies?

"a malum in se offense is naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community"

did you not see the full implication of the statement? THE CIVILIZED COMMUNITY NOT GOD!!! ADJUDGED IT EVIL and as such I, a member of such civilized community per my training will naturally be outraged by the killing of millions of children.

if I was a member of the elite in olden times, I might not be outraged by the thought of owning a slave because....see my OP.


I ask you, would you consider an earthquake an evil thing?

^^^ I added to my post above to make it clearer for you.

Let me help you understand -

Address this question -

What is the difference between mala in se and mala prohibitum - - - > since they are both as "adjudged by the senses of a civilized community"

What's the difference between both precepts?

Further help for you:

A civilized community - - -> Adjudges mala in se to be naturally evil

A civilized community - - - > Does not adjudge mala prohibita to be naturally evil.

Why?

What's the difference?

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited" ) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se. Conduct that was so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it was illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

http://www.italki.com/question/97732

Also, take note of the literal meaning of mala in se. It is in the bold above.

So. What say you now?

Does mala in se exist or not? And how and why is it different from mala prohibita - since they are BOTH "as adjudged by the senses of a civilized community?"

This straw you grasp, don't think it will be enough if that's all you have to use to breathe underwater.

It says as adjudged by a society, as what feels natural to them, simple, not what is universally natural. There is clearly no such thing. What is natural to a pride of lions isn't so to a community of humans. What is natural to a single lion etc isn't so to a pride sef. It used to be natural for indas or Mayans, I forget which, to sacrifice a vir.gin or two to appease gods. Today's societies? Not so much.

You start claiming you have some sort of superior morality next we know it is what is natural to deep sight. Deep sight doesn't like homosexuals therefore homosexuality is bad! How objective!

Get off it. And don't be so scared, humanity has been running fine without gods for quite some time now, and most of us are happy with the direction we're headed. I mean, we know abhor god sanctioned slavery, no?

wiegraf: This straw you grasp, don't think it will be enough if that's all you have to use to breathe underwater.

It says as adjudged by a society, as what feels natural to them, simple, not what is universally natural. There is clearly no such thing. What is natural to a pride of lions isn't so to a community of humans. What is natural to a single lion etc isn't so to a pride sef. It used to be natural for indas or Mayans, I forget which, to sacrifice a vir.gin or two to appease gods. Today's societies? Not so much.

You start claiming you have some sort of superior morality next we know it is what is natural to deep sight. Deep sight doesn't like homosexuals therefore homosexuality is bad! How objective!

Get off it. And don't be so scared, humanity has been running fine without gods for quite some time now, and most of us are happy with the direction we're headed. I mean, we know abhor god sanctioned slavery, no?

1. Is there a difference between mala in se and mala prohibita or not?

2. Are they not both "as determined by a society" or not?

3. Do you believe there was nothing morally wrong with Aztec human sacrifice, since it was sanctioned by the society? Be explicit with your answer. Do not be vague, or try to escape. Yea or nay.

4. Do you believe there was nothing morally wrong, with the practice of killing off twins and other multiple-born children in parts of pre-colonial Nigeria - since it was sanctioned by the society? Be explicit with your answer. Do not be vague, or try to escape. Yea or nay.

Mr Troll you have a witness!
Nothing in nature is intrinsically evil. nature does not care. it is humanity that defines good/evil, nature is indifferent.

nnofaith: Mr Troll you have a witness!
Nothing in nature is intrinsically evil. nature does not care. it is humanity that defines good/evil, nature is indifferent.

Well the simple point you miss is that what is being discussed here is human morality, and not nature's morality, or lack thereof.

Deep Sight:

1. Is there a difference between mala in se and mala prohibita or not?

Not really, no. Seems to be a scale issue or something similar disguised as something else. Bottom line is societies, individuals, etc, decide on these things.

Deep Sight:
2. Are they not both "as determined by a society" or not?

All morality is (and by individuals as well)

Deep Sight:
3. Do you believe there was nothing morally wrong with Aztec human sacrifice, since it was sanctioned by the society? Be explicit with your answer. Do not be vague, or try to escape. Yea or nay.

Why would I?

NO.... however, that's just me. Ultimately just my opinion as it depends on what I value, see? And what I value is..... subjective.

Other people easily use 'it was sanctioned by society' and depending on what they value they can be justified, simple.

You yourself recently used something similar to 'sanctioned by society', so it would be a wee bit hypocritical to criticize them (note we all must do this though, one way or the other). You mentioned that religion curbs excesses in societies therefore it is of some good. You neglect that one could easily disagree with you on what this greater good is. Your value of something does not make it universally good, at all, just as the majority's value do not make a position universally good. Scale is ultimately irrelevant.

For instance I'm quite sure the meat you eat would much rather value being alive than dead, but because you're stronger you impose your will on it, no? Who are you to state that it is absolutely right for you to live at the expense of the suffering of other living beings?? Exactly how is the prey's case less valid than the predator's? They are simply protecting what they value. Same thing within a species or any community/population, etc.

Aztecs can easily invoke their greater good or happiness, etc etc. Wouldn't be natural to me but doesn't make my case intrinsically better regardless of the various arguments.

Deep Sight:
4. Do you believe there was nothing morally wrong, with the practice of killing off twins and other multiple-born children in parts of pre-colonial Nigeria - since it was sanctioned by the society? Be explicit with your answer. Do not be vague, or try to escape. Yea or nay.

See above.

And don't ignore the cancer colonials brought, along with the good inherent locally as well. Mind you, all this still remains subjective...... We speak of what is natural, as adjudged by us....

EDITS!! Wasn't paying attention. Point 3 and 4

Deep Sight:

Well the simple point you miss is that what is being discussed here is human morality, and not nature's morality, or lack thereof.

Goooooot

Deep Sight:

Well the simple point you miss is that what is being discussed here is human morality, and not nature's morality, or lack thereof.

oops!

Deep Sight:

Well the simple point you miss is that what is being discussed here is human morality, and not nature's morality, or lack thereof.

bros,....

To answer your question...

wiki: The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.

note @bolds...an example of malum prohibitum will be say...don't drive on the right lanes. driving on the right lane after such a law becomes wrong because the law says so. doesn't matter if you are the only road user in the whole country.

a malum in se would be...slavery. the civilized community has declared it evil. gbam! obviously, our great great great grand fathers were not civilized its painful to contemplate I know. take heart though, we might become 'uncivilized' to our children in a few centuries from now...



Morality evolves DS, just like everything else.

^^^ Whoops, and what that translates to, is that genocide may be morally wrong today, but morally right tomorrow, no?

And this makes sense to you?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Whoops, and what that translates to, is that genocide may be morally wrong today, but morally right tomorrow, no?

And this makes sense to you?

No. It means that Slavery was considered normal before but repulsive now. It means that polygamy is considered normal in many societies now but may become repulsive in future. We are moving up in knowledge and intellect, no?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Whoops, and what that translates to, is that genocide may be morally wrong today, but morally right tomorrow, no?

And this makes sense to you?

Looks right to me though. Genocide is considered morally right today actually, see xtians for instance.

Humanity has generally been working its way towards more 'progressive' morals regardless. Most of us value being 'nice', we simply shoot ourselves in the foot a few times too often. Science and education have drastically cut down the rate at which we do that though.

btw, no gods needed. You think we can't manage even that? Your faith in humanity troubles me. What did we ever do to you?

Deep Sight: Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited" ) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se. Conduct that was so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it was illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

http://www.italki.com/question/97732

Also, take note of the literal meaning of mala in se. It is in the bold above.

So. What say you now?

Does mala in se exist or not? And how and why is it different from mala prohibita - since they are BOTH "as adjudged by the senses of a civilized community?"

Please respond to this post.

Deep Sight:

Please respond to this post.

In se does............not exist.

It's all subjective.

wiegraf:

In se does............not exist.

It's all subjective.

You really have to be truly more circumspect about some of the truly shocking and deeply unfortunate positions which you (and some other atheists about here) take, simply in a bid to avoid simple age-old truths firmly embedded within the collective psyche of humanity.

If you say mala in se do not exist, I hope you recognize that you thereby irredeemably relinquish your right to ever be outraged by any atrocity in history or in the current: no matter how gravely inhuman the atrocity is, and regardless of the scale on which it is perpetrated.

Indeed, the word 'atrocity' should similarly disappear from your dictionary - since, as you say, "it is all subjective."

Also if you insist that "it is all subjective," people of criminal inclination who, in their own subjective moral worldview, see nothing wrong with murder, theft, rape, torture, pedophilia, and the like, are perfectly entitled to their "subjective" take, and indeed, denying them the rights to live and act as they please may amount to participating in a system which contradicts your own belief in the strict subjectivity of morality.

Indeed, you will have no basis for ever supporting any international action that seeks to intervene in given nations where governments are perpetrating mass atrocities, such as occurred in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Sudan, and else where. This would be particularly so because "it is all subjective" and as such the peoples of such countries may choose to allow those actions within their realms, in exercise of their "sovereign moral subjectivity". . . . .

Finally, you must also agree that if you hold that "it is all subjective" then by establishing criminal laws, you thereby trample on the rights of those within the society who are in a minority and who wholly disagree with the moral paradigm used in establishing such laws. What this translates to is that it will be wrong to establish any criminal laws at all, because "it is all subjective."

You will thus be left with a lawless, anarchic and meaningless society and world, akin to the worst conceivable jungle - - - > All because of your sad desperation to deny the well embedded basic objective morals of human societies in generality and through the ages. Of course, this desperation, it is obvious, springs from your desperation to deny the existence of that creator that embedded humanity with common conscience - God.

Keep it up. It will take you to the stars and beyond.

Arrant nonsense.

wiegraf:

Not really, no. Seems to be a scale issue or something similar disguised as something else. Bottom line is societies, individuals, etc, decide on these things.



All morality is (and by individuals as well)



Why would I?

NO.... however, that's just me. Ultimately just my opinion as it depends on what I value, see? And what I value is..... subjective.

Other people easily use 'it was sanctioned by society' and depending on what they value they can be justified, simple.

You yourself recently used something similar to 'sanctioned by society', so it would be a wee bit hypocritical to criticize them (note we all must do this though, one way or the other). You mentioned that religion curbs excesses in societies therefore it is of some good. You neglect that one could easily disagree with you on what this greater good is. Your value of something does not make it universally good, at all, just as the majority's value do not make a position universally good. Scale is ultimately irrelevant.

For instance I'm quite sure the meat you eat would much rather value being alive than dead, but because you're stronger you impose your will on it, no? Who are you to state that it is absolutely right for you to live at the expense of the suffering of other living beings?? Exactly how is the prey's case less valid than the predator's? They are simply protecting what they value. Same thing within a species or any community/population, etc.

Aztecs can easily invoke their greater good or happiness, etc etc. Wouldn't be natural to me but doesn't make my case intrinsically better regardless of the various arguments.




See above.

And don't ignore the cancer colonials brought, along with the good inherent locally as well. Mind you, all this still remains subjective...... We speak of what is natural, as adjudged by us....

EDITS!! Wasn't paying attention. Point 3 and 4

What a hopeless bundle of contradictions.

Particularly the bold - nullifies the basis of all secular criminal laws all over the world.

Please take a vacation and rethink your worldview.

It's a tardy mess of a pottage right now.

More similar views to aid the op please! I would like to acquire the means to predict the next transformation in Ethical Relativism and other matters arising.

Reyginus: More similar views to aid the op please! I would like to acquire the means to predict the next transformation in Ethical Relativism and other matters arising.

The nonsensical fellas have stated categorically that there is NOTHING intrinsically wrong with murder, r.ape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, advance free fraud, pedophilia, ritual human sacrifice, patricide, matricide, genocide, and all that.

Can you imagine anyone happy to make such a statement?

And the same folk condemn the Jewish God for such toleration! - WHILE YET INSISTING THAT IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE!

No wonder some religious folks do see atheists as willful moral deviants seeking an escape.

This is outrageous and even perverted and sick nonsense.

Deep Sight:

The nonsensical fellas have stated categorically that there is NOTHING intrinsically wrong with murder, r.ape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, advance free fraud, pedophilia, ritual human sacrifice, patricide, matricide, genocide, and all that.

Lol. @the above. I don't think he will agree with you, even when he is obviously saying it.
I think he is honestly ignorant of the implication his statement will present.

Deep Sight:

You really have to be truly more circumspect about some of the truly shocking and deeply unfortunate positions which you (and some other atheists about here) take, simply in a bid to avoid simple age-old truths firmly embedded within the collective psyche of humanity.

If you say mala in se do not exist, I hope you recognize that you thereby irredeemably relinquish your right to ever be outraged by any atrocity in history or in the current: no matter how gravely inhuman the atrocity is, and regardless of the scale on which it is perpetrated.

Indeed, the word 'atrocity' should similarly disappear from your dictionary - since, as you say, "it is all subjective."

Also if you insist that "it is all subjective," people of criminal inclination who, in their own subjective moral worldview, see nothing wrong with murder, theft, rape, torture, pedophilia, and the like, are perfectly entitled to their "subjective" take, and indeed, denying them the rights to live and act as they please may amount to participating in a system which contradicts your own belief in the strict subjectivity of morality.

Indeed, you will have no basis for ever supporting any international action that seeks to intervene in given nations where governments are perpetrating mass atrocities, such as occurred in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Sudan, and else where. This would be particularly so because "it is all subjective" and as such the peoples of such countries may choose to allow those actions within their realms, in exercise of their "sovereign moral subjectivity". . . . .

Finally, you must also agree that if you hold that "it is all subjective" then by establishing criminal laws, you thereby trample on the rights of those within the society who are in a minority and who wholly disagree with the moral paradigm used in establishing such laws. What this translates to is that it will be wrong to establish any criminal laws at all, because "it is all subjective."

You will thus be left with a lawless, anarchic and meaningless society and world, akin to the worst conceivable jungle - - - > All because of your sad desperation to deny the well embedded basic objective morals of human societies in generality and through the ages. Of course, this desperation, it is obvious, springs from your desperation to deny the existence of that creator that embedded humanity with common conscience - God.

Keep it up. It will take you to the stars and beyond.

Arrant nonsense.

This long soap is a rather disappointing appeal to emotions. What did you expect to achieve with this? You addressed nothing.....

I do recall reading something similar to this. Why, even from you not long ago, but moreso through the ages by various figures, just right before they went forward with objectively good, god-ordained genocide. I did tell you that this same self righteousness you seem high on is what spurred countless atrocities through the ages, no? What objective morals through the ages do you refer to, the ones which demanded child sacrifices or those of slavery?

Keeping with the evolution theme, you don't exactly say one species is objectively better than another, or do you? Eg many think man is the bestesetestsest thing since the sun, superior in every way to all those lesser animals. But man will die out, crocks that have already been around a lot longer than we have may outlive us. Sheep, pigs and cockroaches may outlive us. And of course, the adaptation that gives us the 'advantage' we've had, the intelligence which makes us alpha predators, may be the cause. We could nuke ourselves or create the T-Virus. We also are by far and away the worst cancer this planet has come across with regards with biological threats. We're responsible for the extinction of millions of species, drained all the fossil fuels so even if we die out, another intelligent species may not have the resources to industrialize, kill even ourselves by the millions let alone other animals for sport. All of these aided by that adaptation, intelligence.( Yet some of us still like to claim some sort of inherent superiority, the universe was created just for us after all, abi? )

So now tell me, how are man's values inherently superior to that of another species?? Or do you mean the right to live of the predator supersedes that of prey? That what it values is inherently better than the values of the prey? They other species would be wrong to consider us evil for all we do them? I mean really, man has been to the moon, why should my dog care? How are my values inherently superior to yours? Or do you think the wests' values are inherently superior to those of other cultures?

This is an inescapable truth; morals are built around values. Values differ and are completely subjective. There can therefore never be an objective universal moral code. Never, it's the six foot dwarf. An oxymoron. You yourself already referred to human morality. Please, do tell why?


As for your whining about the end of the world if we accept that, well, in case you missed it, that's how we've been rolling through time. Again, many people have always claimed to get their morals from god however they never showed us these gods. Just claiming some authority and deceiving sheeple, like you're doing right now. If you want to know how morality works, look at the prey/predator again. Simple, the one with the means (or stronger will, that's how a minority could set the code) dictates. That's it. That's how it's been working through nature. Indeed as far as biomass is concerned, the predators' has to be less than the preys', no?

So all the folk who've been claiming god granted morals, which gods? I can only see man and folly. Man has been doing all that, all that time, and the world has not lost meaning, or has it? You seem to think we're incapable of making our own goals. That's silly. In fact, a god would be downright disappointed if he found us incapable of doing even that. I don't think they expect us to be robots, no? You also seem to think we will turn into monsters without some skydaddy threatening us with some hell or the other. We did manage to get rid of blatant god approved slavery without any gods, no? I find your lack of faith in humanity disgusting frankly. I also think it ungrateful. Imagine the billions of hours of sweat put into making our lives easier, billions of us sinful, simple man have died to make this world a better place, no gods needed, yet you think us scum...

Filipino diarrhea (is that funny yet?)