Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I honestly have no idea what you are on about here. Moving on..
That is the problem.
"Good" and "right" are synonyms for "moral". What is good and right for the society is per definition the moral thing to do. Always. What is moral is not up for discussion because that is always what is good and right for the society and never what is detrimental. What is moral isn't relative or subjective because that is always what is beneficial. If people are discussing what is moral and one person says "I subjectively think what is moral is what is good for the society" and another person said "I subjectively think that what is moral is what is detrimental to society" that would be a contradiction in terms. What is subjective isn't what is moral but the different opinions people have about what is beneficial.
"Morality" doesn't equal what is beneficial for society. The definition of "morality" is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour." "Moral" = beneficial.
How would I know which sources you specifically refer to? Just give me the LINKS!
Evolution and natural selection.
The definition of "subjective" is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Evolution and natural selection wasn't "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" when it evolved our survival instinct and it's the survival instinct that is the reason why we help people survive and we call such behavior good/right/beneficial/moral.
I would say it depends on whether context is considered. For example, killing is certainly not always wrong, but killing an innocent person merely for enjoyment is always wrong.
What about self defense?
Yes, the definition of subjective incorporates personal feelings, tastes, and opinions. But the fact is, there is no such thing as a "survival instinct". The desire to preserve one's own life has absolutely nothing at all to do with instinct. It has nothing to do with physiology whatsoever. The will or desire to live or die, or to save a life or to let it die is however completely related to personal feelings, tastes and opinions. Our survival instinct as you call it is the result of learning, and is therefore a product of our personal feelings, tastes and opinions. If there is any relation between evolution and this survival instinct, or between natural selection and this so called survival instinct it is because the physiology of the body has evolved to avoid pain. Pain receptors evolved. Pain receptors are a part of our physiology, and the reason that we pull away when we experience pain.
OK. Let's put in pain instead but that doesn't help you much.
Inflicting pain on others is immoral, especially when we do so for personal enjoyment, because we know that we were designed to avoid pain. I never ever did say or suggest that inflicting pain on others is subjectively wrong. And so this statement of yours, "There goes your subjective morality" is meaningless. I had said it is inherently, and objectively wrong, and the reason it is wrong is because we have been designed to avoid pain, yet there are those who would ignore this reality and willingly inflict pain onto others. So you are right, inflicting pain on others is not wrong because someone subjectively and suddenly decided that it is wrong. It is wrong because people ignore the reality that we were designed to avoid pain, and yet still willingly choose to cause pain to others. Doing so is always wrong.
We evolved a survival instinct so we avoid pain, since pain indicates injury or disease which in turn decreases chances of survival. And since it wasn't our subjective opinion that organisms should be born with a survival instinct it is objectively wrong to cause injury, disease or death unless to avoid greater harm.
They are not objectively supposed to want to die. Something has overridden their OBJECTIVE survival instinct which is why we stop them, regard them as ill and sometimes medicate them. What is objectively right doesn't depend on their subjective feelings.
Yes, I think so. We do not evolve for any particular purpose whatsoever. Pain receptors, and therefore avoidance of pain is the instinct that via evolutionary processes exists in our physiology. It is an accidental consequence that this genetic physical process came into existence (unless of course it was designed by a designer). We evolved a physiological process which causes us to avoid pain. That genetic and physiological process of avoidance of pain inadvertently contributes to our ability to survive. It was not an intended consequence that pain receptors ought benefit our ability to survive, unless of course those processes was designed by a designer. Our design is to avoid pain. It may or may not be the case that this design was purposefully intended to benefit our survival.
No, you keep forgetting we have no survival instinct. We have an avoidance of pain instinct. The benefit of survival is an inadvertent consequence of our avoidance of pain instinct. No one is supposed to want to avoid death. We are designed to avoid pain. If we could cause our own death without pain, we have accomplished a subjective desire to die without contradicting the design which causes us to avoid pain. People do it all the time. We stop them not because there is some objective truth that death is wrong. We stop them because we have subjective feelings and emotions with regard to the loss of loved ones, and we are capable of empathy for those who love that person who decides they want to end their life.