Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

You appear to be confusing the terms elective and subjective. Whether you choose to have preferences does not change the fact that they are subjective.

gain, read these:
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God
Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok

You appear to have read them, so why don't you show us how their arguments are supported by logic and reason?

 

[ArtieE]

You appear to have read them, so why don't you show us how their arguments are supported by logic and reason?

Yes I have read them several times. Have you read them?

 

[ArtieE]

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.

So if I am of the subjective opinion murder is moral and you are of the subjective opinion murder is immoral we are both right? Because what is morally right or wrong is subjective?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Depends on the circumstances. There's no yes or no answer without knowing the specific circumstances.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.Never said that.Impossible to say without knowing the exact circumstances.This is correct.That act is a moral act by definition because not harming him would lead to more people than one coming to harm.The intent was to do a moral thing I just misunderstood the situation.I don't know. Ask some lawyer.Don't understand what you mean.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.OK.

Stop grasping at straws. I didn't ask you about the reason, circumstance, or justification for killing, raping, poising, or genocide. I asked you is the act of killing in itself a moral act? Since you seem very reluctant to answer, let me help you. NO! Even a child understands that it is not a good thing to cause any harm to another human being. The reasons are obvious, and is defined as an immoral act.

Depends on the circumstances. There's no yes or no answer without knowing the specific circumstances.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.Never said that.Impossible to say without knowing the exact circumstances.This is correct.That act is a moral act by definition because not harming him would lead to more people than one coming to harm.The intent was to do a moral thing I just misunderstood the situation.I don't know. Ask some lawyer.Don't understand what you mean.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.OK.

I have no idea why you are being so willfully obstinate. If a moral act is to cause the least amount of harm or ill-being to another person, then killing is not a moral act. How can you not understand this concept/definition? A moral act is not defined as causing the least amount of harm to another in some circumstances and not in other circumstances. The definition is clear enough, even to a 6 year old. Therefore, your answer is simply YES, the act of killing is NOT a moral act. If the act of killing is not a moral act, then it must be an immoral act. An immoral act is the opposite of a moral act. Since the act of killing does cause harm, it must be an immoral act. An immoral act is not defined as, becoming a moral act only when it protects the lives of the greatest number of people. Can't you see what a "slippery slope", you are on. Probably not.

We are all born with the most basic of instincts. Our instinct to survive.This instinct is an objective innate feature of the human condition, due to our evolutionary hardwiring. This objective hardwired feature in humans also controls our other instincts(tribal, herding, love, hate, fear, sex). Also our physical instincts(hunger, thirst, air, and sex), and our social instincts(need to belong, be accepted, to protect, to form close relationships). These instincts are all genetically controlled. How these genes and alleles are expressed in our subconscious, will determine what our personalities will be. And, to a certain extent how the conscious mind will view/interpret its subjective reality. Every thought that goes through our head, every sensation that we received through our sense organs, and every experience we have, will always be from a subjective perspective. We are all trapped within this perspective. The only objective control we have over "self" is the decision not to action an expressed trait.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes I have read them several times. Have you read them?

I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not a recommended reading forum. Is there anything you would like to discuss?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So if I am of the subjective opinion murder is moral and you are of the subjective opinion murder is immoral we are both right? Because what is morally right or wrong is subjective?

Morality is determined by the culture at large, not single individuals. There are many instances where killing a person is considered moral amongst the majority of society, and some of those morals change through time. At one time capital punishment was considered moral in many cultures, but it is not considered moral in those same cultures now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Stop grasping at straws. I didn't ask you about the reason, circumstance, or justification for killing, raping, poising, or genocide. I asked you is the act of killing in itself a moral act? Since you seem very reluctant to answer, let me help you. NO! Even a child understands that it is not a good thing to cause any harm to another human being. The reasons are obvious, and is defined as an immoral act.

I have no idea why you are being so willfully obstinate. If a moral act is to cause the least amount of harm or ill-being to another person, then killing is not a moral act. How can you not understand this concept/definition? A moral act is not defined as causing the least amount of harm to another in some circumstances and not in other circumstances. The definition is clear enough, even to a 6 year old. Therefore, your answer is simply YES, the act of killing is NOT a moral act. If the act of killing is not a moral act, then it must be an immoral act. An immoral act is the opposite of a moral act. Since the act of killing does cause harm, it must be an immoral act. An immoral act is not defined as, becoming a moral act only when it protects the lives of the greatest number of people. Can't you see what a "slippery slope", you are on. Probably not.

We are all born with the most basic of instincts. Our instinct to survive.This instinct is an objective innate feature of the human condition, due to our evolutionary hardwiring. This objective hardwired feature in humans also controls our other instincts(tribal, herding, love, hate, fear, sex). Also our physical instincts(hunger, thirst, air, and sex), and our social instincts(need to belong, be accepted, to protect, to form close relationships). These instincts are all genetically controlled. How these genes and alleles are expressed in our subconscious, will determine what our personalities will be. And, to a certain extent how the conscious mind will view/interpret its subjective reality. Every thought that goes through our head, every sensation that we received through our sense organs, and every experience we have, will always be from a subjective perspective. We are all trapped within this perspective. The only objective control we have over "self" is the decision not to action an expressed trait.

Sorry to jump in here, but I feel like I need to point out that the details of the situation do matter. And very much so. I'm not sure how anyone can make a moral determination about any situation without actually knowing what it is we're dealing with. Killing can be moral in one situation, but completely immoral in a different situation. Killing could be considered a moral act if a loved one has a terminal illness and is suffering terribly and just can't take it anymore and is begging for help in ending their own life with some dignity. Whereas, it would be immoral to kill a random person on the street because you just felt like doing it. The situation matters.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Sorry to jump in here, but I feel like I need to point out that the details of the situation do matter. And very much so. I'm not sure how anyone can make a moral determination about any situation without acting knowing what it is we're dealing with. Killing can be moral in one situation, but completely immoral in a different situation. Killing could be considered a moral act if a loved one has a terminal illness and is suffering terribly and just can't take it anymore and is begging for help in ending their own life with some dignity. Whereas, it would be immoral to kill a random person on the street because you just felt like doing it. The situation matters.

There are three things that determine whether an action is moral or immoral. The objective act itself, the subjective intention or reason for the act, and the circumstances surrounding the act. All three aspects must be objectively good, in order for the act to be morally good. If the act itself is an intrinsically evil act(murder, killing, rape, torture, pedophilia), it can never be a moral act. These actions go against our basic human good, and should never be compromised. Our subjective intention must also be objectively good. If we are are motivated by our hatred for all Middle Easterners with an accent, then our actions are morally evil, regardless of the circumstances. Good intentions can never make bad actions good or moral. The circumstances only contribute to increasing or decreasing the morality(right or wrong) of the act.

The ends cannot always justify the means. I have already stated that any unjustifiable immoral act can never be moral. That is an obvious given. Where we disagree is that a justifiable immoral act can't be a moral act. Even if your family had a gun pointed at their heads, and you are told to kill someone to save them, you would still be criminally responsible for your actions. No life is worth more or less than another life, even if that life is innocent or guilty. I believe, from memory, any crimes committed under duress(Patty Hearst) except for murder, you would not be criminally responsible. Since killing is the ultimate harm you can do to another person, I can't see how this fits into the definition of a moral act, to do the least amount of harm.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There are three things that determine whether an action is moral or immoral. The objective act itself, the subjective intention or reason for the act, and the circumstances surrounding the act. All three aspects must be objectively good, in order for the act to be morally good. If the act itself is an intrinsically evil act(murder, killing, rape, torture, pedophilia), it can never be a moral act. These actions go against our basic human good, and should never be compromised. Our subjective intention must also be objectively good. If we are are motivated by our hatred for all Middle Easterners with an accent, then our actions are morally evil, regardless of the circumstances. Good intentions can never make bad actions good or moral. The circumstances only contribute to increasing or decreasing the morality(right or wrong) of the act.

The ends cannot always justify the means. I have already stated that any unjustifiable immoral act can never be moral. That is an obvious given. Where we disagree is that a justifiable immoral act can't be a moral act. Even if your family had a gun pointed at their heads, and you are told to kill someone to save them, you would still be criminally responsible for your actions. No life is worth more or less than another life, even if that life is innocent or guilty. I believe, from memory, any crimes committed under duress(Patty Hearst) except for murder, you would not be criminally responsible. Since killing is the ultimate harm you can do to another person, I can't see how this fits into the definition of a moral act, to do the least amount of harm.

How do you determine if morality is objectively good? You keep referencing what humans want and need, but that is subjective morality. Where are the objective criteria independent of humans that are used to determine objective morality?

 

[ArtieE]

I asked you is the act of killing in itself a moral act? Since you seem very reluctant to answer, let me help you. NO!

Let me help you. It's neither a moral act nor an immoral act in itself.

Even a child understands that it is not a good thing to cause any harm to another human being.

And even a child understands that sometimes you have to cause harm to another human being to avoid more harm to come to more people. Like in self defense.

The reasons are obvious, and is defined as an immoral act.

Just answer this question: Is killing a suicide bomber before he has time to set off a bomb in a crowd an immoral act?

If a moral act is to cause the least amount of harm or ill-being to another person

Never said it was. I said to cause the least amount of harm to the society and all the people in it.

then killing is not a moral act.

Correct, if you leave out the society and the other people in it and only focus on one person.

How can you not understand this concept/definition?

I do.

A moral act is not defined as causing the least amount of harm to another in some circumstances and not in other circumstances.

Never said it was. I said the moral act is the one that is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the society and the people in it.

The definition is clear enough, even to a 6 year old. Therefore, your answer is simply YES, the act of killing is NOT a moral act.

The act of killing in itself is neither a moral nor an immoral act.

If the act of killing is not a moral act, then it must be an immoral act.

It's neither in itself.

An immoral act is the opposite of a moral act.

Correct.

Since the act of killing does cause harm, it must be an immoral act. An immoral act is not defined as, becoming a moral act only when it protects the lives of the greatest number of people. Can't you see what a "slippery slope", you are on. Probably not.

No.

 

[ArtieE]

Morality is determined by the culture at large, not single individuals. There are many instances where killing a person is considered moral amongst the majority of society, and some of those morals change through time. At one time capital punishment was considered moral in many cultures, but it is not considered moral in those same cultures now.

I said: "So if I am of the subjective opinion murder is moral and you are of the subjective opinion murder is immoral we are both right? Because what is morally right or wrong is subjective?"

So if most of the people in a society are of the subjective opinion that capital punishment is moral and the minority of the people in a society are of the subjective opinion that capital punisment is immoral it is both moral and immoral? Since what is moral or immoral is subjective?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So if most of the people in a society are of the subjective opinion that capital punishment is moral and the minority of the people in a society are of the subjective opinion that capital punisment is immoral it is both moral and immoral? Since what is moral or immoral is subjective?

Morality is determined by the majority position. This is also how we make laws in democracies. Ideas on morality are debated by society. Society also observes the impact of peoples' actions within society. It is through experience and debate that we determine morality as a society and culture, and we do so based on our subjective opinions of what we need and want in society. At each and every step in the process we reference what we want as humans. Never do we determine morality independently of what it is to be human, which is what an objective morality would be.

 

[ArtieE]

There are three things that determine whether an action is moral or immoral. The objective act itself, the subjective intention or reason for the act, and the circumstances surrounding the act. All three aspects must be objectively good, in order for the act to be morally good. If the act itself is an intrinsically evil act(murder, killing, rape, torture, pedophilia), it can never be a moral act.

So you simply ignore the subjective intention or reason for the act and the circumstances surrounding the act. You simply declare killing to be an intrinsically evil act and just ignore all the other factors you listed in your second sentence.

 

[ArtieE]

Morality is determined by the majority position.

So murder would be moral if that was the subjective opinion of the majority?

 

[Audie]

Sorry to jump in here, but I feel like I need to point out that the details of the situation do matter. And very much so. I'm not sure how anyone can make a moral determination about any situation without acting knowing what it is we're dealing with. Killing can be moral in one situation, but completely immoral in a different situation. Killing could be considered a moral act if a loved one has a terminal illness and is suffering terribly and just can't take it anymore and is begging for help in ending their own life with some dignity. Whereas, it would be immoral to kill a random person on the street because you just felt like doing it. The situation matters.

Well, seriously. Even a 5 1/2 yr old can figure that.
Those whose synapses are clogged with ideology, not so much.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So murder would be moral if that was the subjective opinion of the majority?

It wouldn't be murder. It would be a killing which was morally justified, of which there are many in today's society. If someone kills another human being in self defense we don't call it murder.

 

[Audie]

It wouldn't be murder. It would be a killing which was morally justified, of which there are many in today's society. If someone kills another human being in self defense we don't call it murder.

A Jesuit priest that I talked to said that God did not make us as robots
with no minds.

We have the responsibility to use intelligent judgement and act wisely.

Makes sense to me.

The rigid "moralism" of people who'd say for example they'd not steal a penny
'to save their mother's life are being idiots.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The rigid "moralism" of people who'd say for example they'd not steal a penny
'to save their mother's life are being idiots.

As Coel Hellier puts it:

"Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?

Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality?"
Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense

 

[Truly Enlightened]

How do you determine if morality is objectively good? You keep referencing what humans want and need, but that is subjective morality. Where are the objective criteria independent of humans that are used to determine objective morality?

Studies at Harvard, Yale and other institutions, demonstrate that toddlers do not come into the world "devoid of character and morality". Nor are they "perfect idiots" https://nypost.com/2013/10/26/do-babies-know-good-from-evil/ . How do you think this is possible? Even a 15 month child can distinguish between what is a "false belief" about reality, and what is a real belief about reality(right and wrong). Babies also have a hardwired(evolved) innate sense of the laws of nature(i.e., gravity), that is called "naïve physics". Eight month old children will in most cases pick the good puppet or the puppet causing harm to another puppet to play with. Not the puppet that is bad or being harmed. Even newborn babies show a preference for their mothers over strangers. Where do you think this behavior comes from? Or, do you think it is a subjective choice, by babies? Even children as young as 4 months old, approve of harming those that harm others. Babies also have a hardwired(evolved) sense of justice, altruism, distrust, and a preference for the familiar. These instinctive evolutionary moral attributes, are objectively hardwired from our inherited genetic materials.These attributes are necessary for our survival, since survival also "depended on knowing the difference between those who are one of us (safe) and those who are other (dangerous)".

There are no, "objective criteria independent of humans that are used to determine objective morality". Your question makes no sense, since there are no objective criteria without humans, and no such thing as objective morality(not the moral act).The question is therefore fallacious.

We are all born into this world as moral creatures, with objective moral attributes(instincts), controlled and expressed by the inherited genes of our ancestors. Period. These instincts(genes) are objective necessities, not initially learned(subjective) through social norms, or previous experiences. Our sense of morality is only more discerned and refined through our continued interaction with society, and others that are different from ourselves.

 

[ArtieE]

It wouldn't be murder. It would be a killing which was morally justified, of which there are many in today's society. If someone kills another human being in self defense we don't call it murder.

If the majority thought raping little girls for fun was moral would it be moral? Since what is moral is subjective?