If it wasn't for religion

[Acrobat]

Familiar with reference? Realist semantics implicitly carry an assumption of referential realism. Put simply, a mental designation may only exist in a mind (and this is true pretty much by definition) - but that places no such restriction on it's referent.

So long as the mental designations..that only exist in our minds, carry existent referents beyond them, they are taken to be objective and "real" - those that don't, aren't.

Lol, you denied the existence of good and bad as “stuff”, unlike a cup, or two apples.

If you believe in some sort platonic conception of the form of the Good, it might make sense that when you say good, it’s referring to an existent referent out there in reality.

But you deny the very existence of the thing your mental designations are supposedly referring to out there.

---

In your hypothetical case, the outcome would be a generation of dysfunctional people and, ultimately, extinction. As such, if such a trait were to appear in a population, either that population would disappear quickly, or the trait would be selected against, by having those individuals with that trait made unable to propagate it through jail or capital punishment.

The wrongness you now perceive towards such a behaviour hints that, at some time in the past, in human (or very likely pre-ape) populations it was selected against, as it was deemed that the group would suffer from it... And probably did suffer.

You’re over extending evolution here.

Evolution pertains to the selections of components of our biological makeup. When it comes to morality, at best it describe components of our inner states, our physiological sensations, and feelings. The discomfort you might feel when seeing the holocaust.

When it comes to wrongness, you’re not describing your inner biological state, but speaking of something out there not in here.


Secondly evolution selected for a variety of components that drove the holocaust. The primary element being the psychological phenomena of scapegoating. The scapegoating of jews arose out of components that were selected for. And scapegoating serves a variety of purposes especially for groups, it’s bring those doing the scapegoating together, motivates them to a common cause, foster group solidarity, provides catharsis. Hitler ability to unify Germany the way he did relied on such evolutionary components of our psychologically.

Evolution also doesn’t think in ultimate terms, it relies on existing environment pressures for selection, not non-existing futures ones. It’s short sighted. Hence why features like scapegoating are pretty much a universal, even if it can have long term negative consequences.

The "rules" of society, like I hinted at in my previous post, are those that lead to the betterment of individuals in the group.

No, scapegoating might be beneficial for a groups survival, but it would still be immoral.

Secondly our moral intuitions are not seen in relationship to society or a group. Hence why when you’re trying to get your children to recognize something they did is wrong, you can say how would you like it if someone treated you that way, rather than how does it negatively contribute to the betterment of the group. If you try to use the latter approach, they’d probably just shrug their shoulders, and dismiss it.

You’re getting your child to recognize a moral truth, that you ought to treat others and you would like to be treated, the golden rule, that a moral reality imposes on them, not their society, or people.