(March 2, 2016 at 9:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote: My insticts and genetics may explain my lethality and propensity for it. Is this what you would refer to for objective mores? It's easy to say that "sin", as you define it, leads to dysfunction, but you're ignoring all those times it leads to gain, success, and happiness... not just on an individual scale, but a societal scale. You're appealing to our "better natures" by ignoring our whole natures.
Like I said earlier, nobody said that morality is a simple subject. That's why I see any objective morality as hypothetical or inscrutable, even though we can get a glimpse of things we suspect to be objective mores.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the sins can lead to gain, success, and happiness. Note that nobody's talking about sex, eating, or relaxing. It's only a "sin" when it gets so out of control that it becomes harmful. Take sex, for example. It's a normal and healthy expression of human adult function. But sex addiction can lead to harmful relationships, the spread of disease, and the loss of the individual to fully pursue other interests or ambitions. Not only is it likely to affect one's own genetic fitness, but that of others also.
Now, keep in mind that I'm still talking about statistical norms here. You can always say that there's nothing intrinsically important about the survival of the species, or of reducing suffering.