Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Polymath257]

No, I was being facetious.

More specifically, I've had people spew their spittle on me and threaten me with knives and baseball bats and fists while preaching in public. Others picked up objects to throw at me or stole my Bible out of my hands while I was preaching. I felt at these times a genuine love for these people and would lay down my life for you or anyone to trust Christ.

What, precisely, were you saying just before such actions?

Do you know that there is a concept of 'fighting words' that is often taken to excuse minor cases of violence in a situation where they are directed at another?

For example, I can imagine any number of words that, if spoken in the wrong locations, could easily get a person killed. Not that this would be justified or legal, but you do have to consider context in these things, if nothing else for your own safety.

Lesser examples would probably fall under 'fighting words' exemptions. Are you *sure* you didn't provoke more than simply 'speaking softly'?

Once again, for your own safety (and those around you), you might want to consider how your audience might reasonably respond to your actual words. If you are shouting at people, claiming they are sinners, and condemning their clothes, music, etc, maybe you might want to tone down your sermons.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why--so you can reprove them for threatening me physically for TALKING?

Because I'm a curious person. And because such reactions tend to be very rare and highly unlikely, and there aren't really many potential suspects assuming you truly did nothing offensive - what exactly do you mean you were doing when you say you were preaching love?

 

[Audie]

Because I'm a curious person. And because such reactions tend to be very rare and highly unlikely, and there aren't really many potential suspects assuming you truly did nothing offensive - what exactly do you mean you were doing when you say you were preaching love?

Maybe the audience realized he was a moral relativist, noting that he'd
rape any girl in the audience if he thought there was a good reason, and,
said, "hey, why not throw rocks? He can only agree it is ok if I feel there is a good reason."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In other words, you'd say to the person, "In most every other situation I can think of, rape is an immoral act. But in this particular situation, it is the moral thing to do. I'm sorry."

Why so desperate to create an absurdity, "rape is cool if it saves 1,000,000 persons" (underscoring just how wrong rape is!) unless you are worried that moral absolutes exist?

She made her point. You were claiming that rape was always wrong and that that was an absolute. Absolute means without exception. Then you agreed to an exception. That pretty much defines that the proscription against rape is relative, this is might vary according to context, and therefore not absolute. I'd say that she made her point convincingly.

You frequently write that others labor fending off the notion that there are moral absolutes or objective moral values in order to justify not accepting the existence of God, correct?

It seems to be the other way around. You are doing verbal gymnastics trying in vain to make a case for such things in order make a god necessary, although it has also been explained to you that identifying moral absolutes wouldn't do that anyway.

It's just another god-of-the-gaps argument - finding a job for this god that makes it necessary.

The problem is that God is running out of jobs to do. We don't need Him to keep the cosmos running day to day, and we didn't need him to build the universe or generate the tree of life from the first population of living cells. What's left? The origin of the early universe, the origin of the first life, the origin of consciousness, and the origin of abstractions like moral values and mathematics. These are the remaining gaps.

when did you decide "I brought it on myself when I had objects thrown at me and was threatened with a knife or baseball bat or spat upon for TALKING"?

The consensus here has been that you are a provocative and condescending representative of your religion. You told me recently that you sensed enmity between us, and you were correct - something rare for me. I did feel hostility toward you then (not now, however), and apparently failed to conceal it.

My apologies for that.

You have written many offensive comments about atheists, so you should expect that at least some people will dislike you because of it. Your overall message is that atheists are intellectually inferior (you have the truth, while atheists are lost), emotionally inferior (only a Christian can love an enemy, which you imply is a virtue), spiritually inferior, and morally inferior.

I only bring that up now because it is relevant to how people perceive you evangelizing face-to-face. What we know is that you provoke people - you have made what you call enemies on this thread - and are being spat at and having books knocked out of your hand.

So it's hardly cruel to speculate that you might be the cause or part of the cause of your problems.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The act of committing rape is wrong and immoral under any circumstance. Causing harm to another human is immoral and counter-productive in our survival. I think what we are talking about is the justification of an immoral act that will cause harm or discomfort to another human. Some of the justifications used in the past were, to stop the spread of Communism, Manifest Destiny, In the name of God, National security, protecting our oil resources in Kuwait, protecting our National Interests, keeping our race pure, etc. All justifying an immoral act. Since no human is perfect, no absolute morality can be attainable. There will always be a circumstance to justify committing even the most heinous of crimes. Believers in religion should know all about them, especially when they read their Bible..

 

[ArtieE]

The act of committing rape is wrong and immoral under any circumstance. Causing harm to another human is immoral and counter-productive in our survival.

If you see a suicide bomber on his way into a shopping mall and the only way to stop him is to cause him harm causing him harm is a moral act. See consequentialism and utilitarianism.

 

[Audie]

The act of committing rape is wrong and immoral under any circumstance. Causing harm to another human is immoral and counter-productive in our survival. I think what we are talking about is the justification of an immoral act that will cause harm or discomfort to another human. Some of the justifications used in the past were, to stop the spread of Communism, Manifest Destiny, In the name of God, National security, protecting our oil resources in Kuwait, protecting our National Interests, keeping our race pure, etc. All justifying an immoral act. Since no human is perfect, no absolute morality can be attainable. There will always be a circumstance to justify committing even the most heinous of crimes. Believers in religion should know all about them, especially when they read their Bible..

So there are absolute wrongs
despite the non existence of
absolute morality.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If you see a suicide bomber on his way into a shopping mall and the only way to stop him is to cause him harm causing him harm is a moral act. See consequentialism and utilitarianism.

Let's first define morality. I believe that it means the innate human ability to discern, understand, and recognize the nature and difference between what is happiness and unhappiness, right and wrong, good and evil, harm and pleasure, health and sickness, and freedom and slavery. This is what I believe is a moral truth or principle. Theoretically, at the limits of each category are the absolutes(morally good and morally bad). Neither absolutes are attainable or achievable, but that doesn't mean that neither exists. And, since every human being have a different view of what moral behavior is, it is certainly not an objective principle or truth.

So let me rephrase my earlier comments. All unjustifiable acts by one human causing pain, suffering, and enslavement to another, is an immoral act. According to you, morality will change to accommodate the subject of the proposition. If this were true, than morality would always be in the province of the State and the community. If one State decided that cannibalism doesn't effect another State in any way, then that State is being moral in its acceptance of the practice of cannibalism. What I am saying, is that it is the immoral act itself that is immoral. You might kill someone in self-defence or trying to protect others, but the act of killing in itself is an immoral act, albeit justifiable. Maybe you can give me an example of an unjustifiable immoral act, that would be considered subjectively or objectively moral? For example genital mutilations, genocide and infanticide, or rape and homicide. Are there any circumstances when these actions are both moral and unjustifiable? Do you think that male lions committing infanticide is an unjustifiable moral act?

Since absolute morality(both absolute right and wrong) is unattainable for humans, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means that all moral and immoral behavior are defined within its limits. Therefore, all immoral acts are not negated whether absolute morality exists or not, or is attainable. I do believe in the ethics of Utilitarianism(to promote the greatest mount of happiness for the greatest number). I am also a consequentialist, in so far as how it relates to the categories I've mentioned earlier. Therefore, I do agree that causing a suicide bomber harm is a necessary immoral act, I just don't believe that killing itself is a moral act.

 

[ArtieE]

Let's first define morality. I believe that it means the innate human ability to discern, understand, and recognize the nature and difference between what is happiness and unhappiness, right and wrong, good and evil, harm and pleasure, health and sickness, and freedom and slavery. This is what I believe is a moral truth or principle.

Morality is defined as the ability to distinguish between good and bad actions. What are good and bad actions is grounded in evolution and natural selection not in subjective opinions.

Theoretically, at the limits of each category are the absolutes(morally good and morally bad). Neither absolutes are attainable or achievable, but that doesn't mean that neither exists. And, since every human being have a different view of what moral behavior is, it is certainly not an objective principle or truth.

How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God
Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok

According to you, morality will change to accommodate the subject of the proposition.

Nope. The moral act will always be the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being of the society and the people in it.

What I am saying, is that it is the immoral act itself that is immoral. You might kill someone in self-defence or trying to protect others, but the act of killing in itself is an immoral act, albeit justifiable.

If the killing is done because the act is more beneficial for the well-being of your society and the people in it than not killing, say you kill a terrorist before he manages to set of a bomb in a crowd of people, the killing is moral. If the killing is more detrimental than beneficial for the well-being and survival of your society and the people in it the killing is immoral. The act in itself isn't moral or immoral.

Therefore, all immoral acts are not negated whether absolute morality exists or not, or is attainable. I do believe in the ethics of Utilitarianism(to promote the greatest mount of happiness for the greatest number). I am also a consequentialist, in so far as how it relates to the categories I've mentioned earlier. Therefore, I do agree that causing a suicide bomber harm is a necessary immoral act, I just don't believe that killing itself is a moral act.

Killing is neither a moral nor immoral act in itself. It just depends on the circumstances.

 

[Audie]

I think the Christian position is that morality is
from "god", the arbiter.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Morality is defined as the ability to distinguish between good and bad actions. What are good and bad actions is grounded in evolution and natural selection not in subjective opinions.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God
Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok
Nope. The moral act will always be the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being of the society and the people in it.If the killing is done because the act is more beneficial for the well-being of your society and the people in it than not killing, say you kill a terrorist before he manages to set of a bomb in a crowd of people, the killing is moral. If the killing is more detrimental than beneficial for the well-being and survival of your society and the people in it the killing is immoral. The act in itself isn't moral or immoral.Killing is neither a moral nor immoral act in itself. It just depends on the circumstances.

There are probably many definitions of human morality. I was simply giving you mine for the purpose of clarity. I have no problems with your "ability to distinguish between good and bad actions". "The moral act will always be the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being of the society and the people in it". Is the act of taking another human life beneficial, or least detrimental to the well being of that life? Or, do the wicked not count? By your definition alone, the act of killing is NOT a moral act. It is certainly not conducive to the well-being of the person in any way. Also, since other individuals might choose a different path to stop a terrorist(save others, raise the alarm, close off access routes, run away, avoid confrontation, etc.), clearly their sense of morality is not objective. The killing of a terrorist bomber is not a moral act, it is a justifiable immoral act. If the act of killing is neither moral or immoral, then how do we determine if our actions are right or wrong? Do we need to redefine morality, or are our actions simply arbitrary, instinctive, subjective, or deliberate? By your definition, the "final solution" was a moral act. Since "the act is more beneficial for the well-being of your society and the people in it than not killing". Do you see my point?

I believe that only religious fanatics(such as your terrorist) call their killing "morally justified". Those in the Crusades also considered it their "moral" duty to kill. But the more modern and civilized thinkers believe that the act of killing is a bad thing to do. So much so, that they enacted laws to protect its citizens from the immoral actions of others. Do you think that state sanctioned killings is a "moral" act? So again I ask you, can you give me an example of any unjustified moral act that is moral(remember your definition of morality)? I believe that the more our personality traits evolve, the more our sense of morality will become. It is also my belief that when our population reaches a certain point, you will begin to see a new kind of morality arise. ​

 

[ArtieE]

Is the act of taking another human life beneficial, or least detrimental to the well being of that life?

It's not only that life that counts in the equation. Have you completely forgotten the society and the rest of the people?

Or, do the wicked not count? By your definition alone, the act of killing is NOT a moral act. It is certainly not conducive to the well-being of the person in any way.

How did you manage to miss that it might be conducive to the well-being of the society and the other people in it which makes it moral?

Also, since other individuals might choose a different path to stop a terrorist(save others, raise the alarm, close off access routes, run away, avoid confrontation, etc.), clearly their sense of morality is not objective.

Makes no sense at all now you're just confused.

The killing of a terrorist bomber is not a moral act, it is a justifiable immoral act. If the act of killing is neither moral or immoral, then how do we determine if our actions are right or wrong?

We determine if our actions are right or wrong by whether they are beneficial or detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people!

By your definition, the "final solution" was a moral act. Since "the act is more beneficial for the well-being of your society and the people in it than not killing". Do you see my point?

It was detrimental to the Jews and the German society and the German people.

I believe that only religious fanatics(such as your terrorist) call their killing "morally justified". Those in the Crusades also considered it their "moral" duty to kill. But the more modern and civilized thinkers believe that the act of killing is a bad thing to do.

Not in all circumstances. Ask any cop who shoots a criminal to protect innocent people.

So much so, that they enacted laws to protect its citizens from the immoral actions of others.

And the law defines an immoral act as an act "Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency. What is IMMORAL? definition of IMMORAL (Black's Law Dictionary)

Do you think that state sanctioned killings is a "moral" act?

Depends on whether they are beneficial or detrimental to the well-being and survival of that society and people.

So again I ask you, can you give me an example of any unjustified moral act that is moral(remember your definition of morality)?

Now you are terminally confused again. The moral act is in any situation the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of your society and the people in it. The words "justified" and "unjustified" are just superfluous and unnecessary.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It's not only that life that counts in the equation. Have you completely forgotten the society and the rest of the people?How did you manage to miss that it might be conducive to the well-being of the society and the other people in it which makes it moral?Makes no sense at all now you're just confused.We determine if our actions are right or wrong by whether they are beneficial or detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people! It was detrimental to the Jews and the German society and the German people.Not in all circumstances. Ask any cop who shoots a criminal to protect innocent people.And the law defines an immoral act as an act "Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency. What is IMMORAL? definition of IMMORAL (Black's Law Dictionary) Depends on whether they are beneficial or detrimental to the well-being and survival of that society and people.Now you are terminally confused again. The moral act is in any situation the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of your society and the people in it. The words "justified" and "unjustified" are just superfluous and unnecessary.

Hitler and the German people, since the early 30's, were anti-Semitic as a Nation. The storm troopers would even sing "When Jewish blood splatters from the knife". They blamed the Jews in part for their defeat in the war. How is State sanctioned killing in any way, beneficial to the Jewish people? How is state sanctioned racism and anti-semitism propaganda beneficial to the well-being of the Jewish population(9%) in Germany? Were these acts simply moral because they were beneficial to 90% of the German population? By your definition, as long as it is "..conducive to the well-being of the society and the other people in it which makes it moral." I simply disagree. I also don't believe that the definition of morality is mutable, or subject to application, justification, or modification. Morality and altruism are a part of our evolutionary blueprint. It is instilled in us to assist in our survival as a species. Moral acts do not depend on being justified or unjustified. It is the IMMORAL ACTS that must be described as being justified or unjustified. We don't have laws protecting us from moral acts. I am claiming that all moral acts are beneficial to EVERYONE when applied to EVERYONE in society. By its definition, it will always be a moral act, and never become an immoral or justifiable immoral act. You are claiming that a justifiable immoral act can become a moral act. This equivocation fallacy would mean that there are two definitions for morality. One defines it as doing the least amount of harm to any individual in society, period! The other defines it as doing the maximum harm to any individual in society, as long as it is justifiable. This is inconsistent.

Just because you are confused, doesn't mean that the other person is confused. That would be called arrogant. Just ask for an explanation, and spare me the innuendos. If morality was objective, we would all act and respond in the same way. Clearly, this was demonstrated in other bombings in America, as not being part of the human condition. Why is this confusing to you? Don't you understand the implications and effects of what objective morality is?

Just because you assert that something is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. Since the words "justified" and "unjustified" do not apply to any moral act, they are indeed irrelevant. But what we are talking about is an immoral act, which indeed needs to be defined as either "justified" or "unjustified". Or, do you believe that rape or killing should not be defined at all?

I have no idea what your hidden agenda is, nor care. It seems quite clear that you are not going to give me even one example of an unjustified immoral act, that could become a moral act. That is, other than simply repeating over and over the definition of morality, or trying to misapply it to a justified immoral act(equivocation fallacy). Since your logic is based on your misplaced resolve, I think we should simply agree to disagree, to avoid wasting both our times.

 

[ArtieE]

Hitler and the German people, since the early 30's, were anti-Semitic as a Nation. The storm troopers would even sing "When Jewish blood splatters from the knife". They blamed the Jews in part for their defeat in the war. How is State sanctioned killing in any way, beneficial to the Jewish people?

Never said it was.

How is state sanctioned racism and anti-semitism propaganda beneficial to the well-being of the Jewish population(9%) in Germany?

Never said it was.

Were these acts simply moral because they were beneficial to 90% of the German population?

Never said they were.

Morality and altruism are a part of our evolutionary blueprint. It is instilled in us to assist in our survival as a species. Moral acts do not depend on being justified or unjustified.

Never said they did. I said: The words "justified" and "unjustified" are just superfluous and unnecessary.

It is the IMMORAL ACTS that must be described as being justified or unjustified.

No they don't. An immoral act is an act that is detrimenal to the well-being and survival of the society and the citizens. No need for the words "justifed" and "unjustified".

We don't have laws protecting us from moral acts.

Never said we had.

I am claiming that all moral acts are beneficial to EVERYONE when applied to EVERYONE in society. By its definition, it will always be a moral act, and never become an immoral or justifiable immoral act. You are claiming that a justifiable immoral act can become a moral act.

No I don't. I don't even use the word "justifiable". You're the one insisting on using that word.

This equivocation fallacy would mean that there are two definitions for morality. One defines it as doing the least amount of harm to any individual in society, period! The other defines it as doing the maximum harm to any individual in society, as long as it is justifiable. This is inconsistent.

Yes it is. Not just inconsistent but your whole line of reasoning is nonsense.

Just because you are confused, doesn't mean that the other person is confused. That would be called arrogant. Just ask for an explanation, and spare me the innuendos. If morality was objective, we would all act and respond in the same way.

Of course not.

Clearly, this was demonstrated in other bombings in America, as not being part of the human condition. Why is this confusing to you? Don't you understand the implications and effects of what objective morality is?

Yes, the implications are that we all have a moral goal: To always do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being of the society and the citizens. The effects would be positive for everybody.

Just because you assert that something is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. Since the words "justified" and "unjustified" do not apply to any moral act, they are indeed irrelevant. But what we are talking about is an immoral act, which indeed needs to be defined as either "justified" or "unjustified".

No it doesn't. The Law dictionary defines immoral as: "Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency." No "justified" or "unjustified" here.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Never said it was.Never said it was.Never said they were.Never said they did. I said: The words "justified" and "unjustified" are just superfluous and unnecessary.No they don't. An immoral act is an act that is detrimenal to the well-being and survival of the society and the citizens. No need for the words "justifed" and "unjustified".Never said we had.No I don't. I don't even use the word "justifiable". You're the one insisting on using that word.Yes it is. Not just inconsistent but your whole line of reasoning is nonsense.Of course not.Yes, the implications are that we all have a moral goal: To always do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being of the society and the citizens. The effects would be positive for everybody.No it doesn't. The Law dictionary defines immoral as: "Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency." No "justified" or "unjustified" here.

It seems clear to me that you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, or may have some other agenda affecting your ability to reason. Let me keep this simple to avoid your parroting definitions and playing silly games of semantics. Also, feel free to tell me where my reasoning is nonsense, rather than simply asserting that it is.

Is the act of killing, raping, genocide, poisoning, etc., examples of a moral act? Yes or No! Remember, by your own definition, a moral act is an act that causes the least amount of harm, ill-being, and loss of freedom for any human being. Like you said, it is beneficial to ALL of its citizens, even the bad ones.

Or, are they immoral acts? Yes or No! Immoral acts are as you stated, "Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency". For dummies like me it means not a nice thing to do, and is the opposite of a moral act. How's my logic so far? Would you agree with these general definitions? Note, no mention of "justified" or "unjustified" Let's move on.

Since you made the statement " If you see a suicide bomber on his way into a shopping mall and the only way to stop him is to cause him harm causing him harm is a moral act". I simply stated that the act of causing him harm was not a moral act(by definition), but was an immoral act(by definition). I also stated that although it was a immoral act, it was a justifiable immoral act. Not a justifiable MORAL act. How can you not understand that, after quoting me the definitions of both? What determines the difference between a soldier in Viet Nam killing a NVA, and a jealous husband killing to protect his wife's honor from verbal abuse? Here's a hint JUSTIFICATION. The former is justified, and the latter is unjustified. What if your suicide bomber was an actor, that was rehearsing for a part in a movie? After killing him, are you going to tell the court that your actions were moral? Or will your lawyer argue that your actions were justified? Which action do you think would be in your best interest?

It is also clear to me, that you only take responsibility for your words, and not their meanings. Hence, all the denials and "never said...." cop-outs. All you have presented to the table are denials, definitions, internet sites with more definitions, and a closed mind trying to protect a weak ego. So unless you are going to provide an example of an unjustifiable immoral act that can become a moral act, then killing a terrorist is NOT a moral act? Since you're not going to address any of my issues, or provide even the semblance of a rational discourse, I think we're done here.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Morality is defined as the ability to distinguish between good and bad actions. What are good and bad actions is grounded in evolution and natural selection not in subjective opinions.

I don't see why an evolved sense of morality could not be subjective. I would think that the morality of wolves, ants, gorillas, and humans are all different, and all of those moralities would be evolved. It would seem to me that our morality is based on our wants and needs as a human which makes morality subjective. I don't see how you can even start to talk about morality without basing it on what humans want and need in society. I also don't see how evolution would proscribe a single morality.

Nope. The moral act will always be the act that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being of the society and the people in it.

The well-being of society is based on humanity's subjective opinion.

 

[ArtieE]

Is the act of killing, raping, genocide, poisoning, etc., examples of a moral act? Yes or No!

Depends on the circumstances. There's no yes or no answer without knowing the specific circumstances.

Remember, by your own definition, a moral act is an act that causes the least amount of harm, ill-being, and loss of freedom for any human being.

No it isn't. The moral act is the one that causes as little harm as possible and that harm should come to as few people as possible.

Like you said, it is beneficial to ALL of its citizens, even the bad ones.

Never said that.

Or, are they immoral acts? Yes or No!

Impossible to say without knowing the exact circumstances.

Immoral acts are as you stated, "Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency". For dummies like me it means not a nice thing to do, and is the opposite of a moral act. How's my logic so far?

This is correct.

Would you agree with these general definitions? Note, no mention of "justified" or "unjustified" Let's move on.

Since you made the statement " If you see a suicide bomber on his way into a shopping mall and the only way to stop him is to cause him harm causing him harm is a moral act". I simply stated that the act of causing him harm was not a moral act(by definition), but was an immoral act(by definition).

That act is a moral act by definition because not harming him would lead to more people than one coming to harm.

I also stated that although it was a immoral act, it was a justifiable immoral act. Not a justifiable MORAL act. How can you not understand that, after quoting me the definitions of both? What determines the difference between a soldier in Viet Nam killing a NVA, and a jealous husband killing to protect his wife's honor from verbal abuse? Here's a hint JUSTIFICATION. The former is justified, and the latter is unjustified. What if your suicide bomber was an actor, that was rehearsing for a part in a movie? After killing him, are you going to tell the court that your actions were moral?

The intent was to do a moral thing I just misunderstood the situation.

Or will your lawyer argue that your actions were justified?

I don't know. Ask some lawyer.

Which action do you think would be in your best interest?

Don't understand what you mean.

It is also clear to me, that you only take responsibility for your words, and not their meanings. Hence, all the denials and "never said...." cop-outs. All you have presented to the table are denials, definitions, internet sites with more definitions, and a closed mind trying to protect a weak ego. So unless you are going to provide an example of an unjustifiable immoral act

Of course I won't because the words "justifiable" and "unjustifiable" are just not relevant. You use them, I don't. They are part of your reasoning and argumentation, not mine. I don't need them, I don't use them, they are irrelevant to my point.

that can become a moral act, then killing a terrorist is NOT a moral act? Since you're not going to address any of my issues, or provide even the semblance of a rational discourse, I think we're done here.

OK.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't see why an evolved sense of morality could not be subjective.

Because evolution and natural selection provides the grounding for what's good or bad, right or wrong, not our subjective opinions.

I would think that the morality of wolves, ants, gorillas, and humans are all different, and all of those moralities would be evolved.

That is correct.

It would seem to me that our morality is based on our wants and needs as a human which makes morality subjective.

We didn't subjectively decide to be born with those "wants and needs". They are grounded in evolution and natural selection.

I don't see how you can even start to talk about morality without basing it on what humans want and need in society. I also don't see how evolution would proscribe a single morality.

The well-being of society is based on humanity's subjective opinion.

A society of a hundred people who help each other is a good society to live in producing a lot of offspring with the same attitude. A society of a hundred people who murder each other is a bad society to live in producing less offspring with the same attitude. This is why we say "murder is wrong", not just because it's somebody's subjective opinion. What's right and wrong is grounded in our evolution. When we say "Do the moral thing" we are actually saying "Do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people." Not because that is somebody's subjective opinion but because we are humans and that's how we evolved.

How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God
Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Because evolution and natural selection provides the grounding for what's good or bad, right or wrong, not our subjective opinions.

It would seem that evolution and natural selection are what produced our subjective opinions.

That is correct.We didn't subjectively decide to be born with those "wants and needs". They are grounded in evolution and natural selection.

I never said that they were elective, and I still don't see how evolution makes morality objective.

A society of a hundred people who help each other is a good society to live in producing a lot of offspring with the same attitude. A society of a hundred people who murder each other is a bad society to live in producing less offspring with the same attitude. This is why we say "murder is wrong", not just because it's somebody's subjective opinion.

It is your subjective opinion that number of offspring determines what is moral. It is also your subjective opinion that murder is wrong. There is no objective set of facts outside of human preference for why murder is wrong. We prefer societies where there is not wanton killing, and that subjective preference forms the foundation of our morality.

What's right and wrong is grounded in our evolution. When we say "Do the moral thing" we are actually saying "Do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people."

Whether the human species should survive is a subjective preference, as is our well-being.

 

[ArtieE]

Whether the human species should survive is a subjective preference, as is our well-being.

That you should be born with a survival/self-preservation instinct is no more a result of your subjective preference than being born with two arms is a result of your subjective preference. Again, read these:
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God
Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok