Materialistic evolution occurred : rape/violence is evolution based :: Divine creation occurred : rape/violence is creation based
Other than that, there isn’t any. Just like there is no logic in your original claim.
Add the concept of free will… creation occurred. People have real choice regarding what they do.
And legal and criminal implications.
Absolutely, as they should.
Is that a problem for you?
What I am saying is that a subjective morality is preferred. Even if an objective morality existed it would be judged by our subjective judgment.
I am saying that morality can change across cultures and time. Morality is something that we are continually discovering and refining.
That’s an unrealistic position. Kinda like saying your subjective opinion of the speed of light is enough to judge the veracity of the actual speed of light…
Your claim makes no sense if objective reality exists. It seems kinda irrational.
Moral codes and definitions of what is morally good/ acceptable change over time… I agree.
What makes you think we are “discovering” anything? Do you think there is an ultimate moral truth which humanity is progressively moving towards?
If an objective morality says that we have to kill half of the children born, would you follow that moral code?
All you have to do is read moral philosophy from the last 500 years. A lot has been discovered, especially during the Enlightenment. In more recent times we have discovered many unneeded biases that we have now shed, such as biases against ethnic groups or sexual preferences.
No. Morality is what living humans say it is, and they will decide for themselves.
This statement is in contradiction with the idea of “discovering” morality.
One discovers things that actually exist…as opposed to things are the way they are just because some human beings in a particular time period say so.
You must agree that living humans differ on a large number of moral issues even today.
So when you say, morality is what “living human say it is”… Which particular group are you referring to? Can’t be all living human beings (because in that case pretty much everything would be both moral as well as immoral as long as we can find atleast two “living human beings” who hold opposite viewpoints).
This is a self contradictory statement.
No, it isn’t. Each and every generation discovers morality for themselves. Morality exists in the same way that human experience, emotions, and empathy exists.
I do agree, which is yet another piece of evidence demonstrating that morality is subjective.
I am talking about social groups. In political science terms, a group would be a nation.
No, it isn’t. You still have this view of a rigid, unchanging moral code that simply doesn’t exist. Once you let go of that, you will see that my statements aren’t contradictory. Morality is something that humans discover in themselves, not external to themselves.
Look at the two statements above. In the first you moved from “living humans” to “social groups”.
In the second, you reduced the category to what individual humans discover in themselves (unless you claim social groups such as nations have individuals who look within themselves and “discover” the same moral code… each one a carbon copy of the other to form a nation…
Who discovers the moral code? Social groups or individuals?
And would you say that each moral code that is “discovered” is unique?
Can you see the issue with your description? It’s the same as saying morality does not exist except for whatever each individual deems as morally right.
Yes. Social groups are made up of living humans, last I checked.
Humans are part of their social group and are influenced by it. Those social influences affect the morality they discover in themselves.
Both. It is a constant feedback loop. Individuals grow up in social groups which influences how they view morality. Individuals expound on moral philosophy, and their social group can be influenced by what others discover in themselves. It’s a constant ebb and flow, back and forth.
As much as any one human is unique. We seem to share a lot of the same moral instincts and emotions.
I would describe it as whatever each social group deems morally right. Morality makes no sense at the individual level. Morality is how we treat each other, after all.
This would lead to contradictory “morally right” things both within the group as well as between groups.
Discovery is not the best word. I think “formulating distinct moral codes” is better.
What you are describing is anarchy at a group level.
That’s an excellent description of morality in the world today.
no problems with how rape and violence is handled in the secular Western world but in the Muslim world, it is the woman who is raped that is punished and perhaps killed. Even the OT has Judaic laws where a father must kill his daughter if the rapist doesn’t agree to marry her or give him 50 shekels. How’s that for putting a monetary value on a human female life.
2 Likes
It definitely would. And guess what? That’s exactly what we see in today’s world.
What I am describing is democracy, where the majority determines morality and law.
1 Like
That’s the closest to a ninja I could find. It’ll have to do 
1 Like
Not really.
I don’t think the majority gets to determine what is moral and what is not.
Moral choices have always been something individuals make.
1 Like
It’s not the language, but the implication that atheists are with empathy and compassion.
If we were to turn this around to purely spiritual terms, would that mean R&V must have a basis in religion? No, clearly not. And pretty insulting too - pardon the rhetoric. Try listening to your own words with a bit of empathy and compassion.
And now I see @Roy already made this point, and once is enough - no need to reply.
Sure, what’s wrong with that? It’s what scientists do - try to understand how things came to be in light of observable phenomenon.
Perhaps not Democratic in the modern sense, but when the people of a village act to exile a misbehaving member of the community, that’s a majority rule decision. The individual makes the moral choice in light of community rules