Euthyphro dilemma asked for evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, in my family kids are pretty much the purpose of life. Everything we do somehow boils down to our kids (or at least we like to think so). The idea of hurting a child is anathema to my families personal culture and to be quite honest I don't think its a conviction that sees much in the way of in-depth consideration.

As far as what evolutionary pathways might have played a role in our overall reluctance to harm children, just how successful at reproduction do you imagine any given species would be if it had a demonstrable tendency to deliberately hurt it's own offspring, or in fact seek out it's own offspring with the intention of torturing them for pleasure? This isn't even a difficult "moral question" to answer from a standpoint of evolutionary biology. Your offspring must survive, and so any action that is detrimental to that goal would not be expressed in the account of what remains living (which is all evolution is in the first place). That we seem to have created an elaborate structure around such behaviors has little to do with whether or not such behaviors are objectively or universally "true" and more to do with whether or not such behaviors are generally successful as survival strategies. We value what works. Not skullfucking your children with a drill seems to work.

So, with no invocations of an objectively true morality floating around making things right there is an evolutionary incentive towards not hurting your own children-at the very least. Combine the fact that we are a social species whose survival depends just as much on the guy next to us as ourselves (and ergo just as much on the other guys kids as our own) and a picture that is consistent with observation emerges. We value our own children more than we value the others guys, but push comes to shove and we value the others guys children enough to extend some measure of "goodness" to children et-all, most of the time. There are people who don't. So clearly it isn't objectively or universally morally true to them that torturing children is wrong.

[Mystic]

The part of your family would explain why you wouldn't like to do it, but does it explain why you feel it is wrong?

Also it is detrimental to progress of species, but why should people pay attention to that? Why should people care of what is in the advantage of our species and give in to feelings produced by evolution? (I know you stated they don't prove it's objectively wrong.)

A question you missed is: Why do you feel like you don't know for sure it's wrong in an absolute manner?

And follow up question: Do you think if you knew Eternal Morality exists and that we are linked to it or it is a basis to us, you would know it's wrong in a sure manner?

[Anomalocaris]

Rhyme, do you agree it's wrong to torture a child out of intention of fun?

I can say, I objectively say it's wrong to torture a child out of intention of fun. It's not just my opinion, it is wrong, and I am right to believe so, and not only right to believe so, but know so.

It is only wrong for some purposes. Whether it is wrong for you depends whether you directly or indirect, freely or have been coerced to, share these purposes.

[Mystic]

It is only wrong for some purposes. Whether it is wrong for you depends whether you directly or indirect, freely or have been coerced to, share these purposes.

What do you mean wrong for you? I think we are using a different definition of wrong here.

[The Grand Nudger]

It does explain it.....lol. The things that make me feel "icky" to contemplate are exactly those things which I call "wrong". Right and wrong is shorthand for my own complicated and oftentimes contradictory set of emotional responses.

They don't have to, but if they don't their species wont survive to ask the question. Anthropic bias.

It's not that I "feel" that I don't know, I don't. I "feel" that it is absolutely and objectively wrong, but I can't demonstrate that this is the case, and our "feelings" have a demonstrable tendency to be in error and/or irrational.

If eternal morality did exist and was somehow linked to you that would not mean that you "knew" anything about it by default. Care to explain precisely how your liver works to me?

[Mystic]

Rhythm, perhaps you can elaborate on what morality is for you exactly. You guys already know how I view it.

[Anomalocaris]

It is only wrong for some purposes. Whether it is wrong for you depends whether you directly or indirect, freely or have been coerced to, share these purposes.

What do you mean wrong for you? I think we are using a different definition of wrong here.

For you means You form the opinion that it is wrong.

[Mystic]

What do you mean wrong for you? I think we are using a different definition of wrong here.

For you means You form the opinion that it is wrong.

OK, can you elaborate on what you stated earlier?

[The Grand Nudger]

Morality is a large set of generally agreed upon value judgements assumed by a given group of individuals for a plethora of reasons (or lack thereof) that forms the basis of how those individuals interact with each other and how they handle those interactions if and when complications arise. This isn't my opinion, this is observation. I have opinions "about" morality, but I'm not so enthralled with my own opinions that I would claim that they are somehow objectively or universally true, especially considering that we have never been able to demonstrate a moral absolute in the first place. An individual is obviously free to form their own personal morality that has nothing to do with any other individual but in the context of what is or is not objectively or universally morally true this morality would have very little bearing on the discussion unless it could be shown that their personal morality was in fact the objectively or universally true morality.

(I'd like to throw a shoutout to Genks position on this matter, it is possible that such a thing exists and we simply haven't discovered it yet, but until we do...null hypothesis..and that's just my personal preference for handling conjecture speaking, anyone else is free to go whatever way they want with it. lol)

[genkaus]

(I'd like to throw a shoutout to Genks position on this matter, it is possible that such a thing exists and we simply haven't discovered it yet, but until we do...null hypothesis..and that's just my personal preference for handling conjecture speaking, anyone else is free to go whatever way they want with it. lol)

I don't think the term "discovery" applies in this context. Morality is a conceptual field, so it cannot exist unless a human formulates it. In pretty much the same manner we formulated the laws of logic and mathematics. So I believe that objective morality does not exist - yet, but we are formulating it, slowly and surely.