morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Aroura]

I don't think it is morally acceptable to kill old or sick people against their will. That being said, I live now, and in a society that would back me up.
If it ever get's to like, road warrior levels, people might change their tune. IDK. A lot of morals have to do with group survival, not individual survival.
I already think it is immoral to have more tan 2 kids, and more an more people are agreeing with me, because we are essentially killing the future by doing so.

And again, if you look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, you'll see that people who have their basic needs taken care of are more likely to spend time worrying about morality. If you haven't eaten in 3 days, and have no idea when you'll get a chance to eat again, you probably won't be worrying much about the morality of stealing a loaf of bread, because it's pretty minor compared to starving to death.
I mean, it's clearly immoral to eat other people. Most of humanity has prescripts against this. But you know, more than once people have done that when their other option was dying, too.

You see the same thing in animals. A very hungry animal will simply eat when given the chance. But an animal that is well fed and is not worrying about a safe place to live will suddenly be able to care about others, not just it's own species even. Dogs raising cats, and vice versa, Hippos saving duckies, etc. The more we take care of each other, the more those people can help take care of each other.

No one asked you to answer for Original Sin, CL, you did that on your own. I specifically addressed Steve (because he mentioned 2 year olds, and wilfull misbehavior and sin). You jumped into that one to defend him. Hive mind behavior, defending something you don't even agree with. Don't blame us for that!

---

Not sure if this has been pointed out already but apologies if it has (I don't have time to read 30 pages).

If there is no free will, then there is no need to justify any kind of response, because that response isn't a choice. So it's not like someone chooses to get angry because a person acts a certain way. They get angry that a person acts a certain way because that is the way their brain works and responds to that stimuli.

It's like asking a car why it goes forward when it's in gear and its gas pedal is pushed. It doesn't choose to do that, that's how the internal mechanism works.

Yeah, it was addressed, I forgot by who though. Mister agenda I think?

I'll see if I can find it.

---

I just figured if an individual has the knowledge that someone had 0 choice over what they did, she/he wouldn't feel angry at the person for having done it. 

But Aroura already explained that while the anger does happen regardless, she acknowledges that the anger is not rational or justified.

It isn't rational.  But I don't have any choice in my behaviors except that knowledge.  And since when did knowing you shouldn't get angry stop you from getting angry?  Anger is a nearly instant response, and one that is....not a choice. : I can try and control it with the tools I now have, but t's a potent emotion,not easily controlled.

You know that mentally ill people have no control (You did agree with this, correct?)  If a severely mentally ill person harms you or your family, your response will be hurt, anger, fear.  Even though they aren't rational responses for you either.  You might get over them faster than someone who thinks the person who harmed you chose it, but you also might not, because they still hurt you/your family.

Rationality is not reality.  We aren't vulcans.