Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Magilla]

I'll repeat once again, and hopefully for the last time: right and wrong are undefined with the absence of god or some external "ultimate judge" that gives them meaning.
Is rape wrong? Everyone, atheist or theist, will say it is. Meanwhile, I find Peter Singer, a sophisticated moral philosopher, who thinks it's okay to rape disabled people.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/n...led-people.
.
.
.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid is simply skullfucking your neighbors' kid, no Eww/Ughh reactions allowed.
In a world without a god, skullfucking your neighbors' kid can be justified from an utilitarian viewpoint, if the neighbors' kid is a haemophiliac infant.

Again, right and wrong are red herring in this context. I agree we all have this inherent moral compass that prevents us from allowing such stuff. But this inherent morality in itself warrants an explanation.

@ Klorophyll {" right and wrong are undefined with the absence of god or some external "ultimate judge" "}.

Then perhaps a godless reality sucks, but we have to live with it.

As evolved creatures, there are built-in drives, which aid the survival of the species, and the survival of the genes within the body's cells, and especially within the gametes, to be passed on to new generations. For example, there is a usual drive for adult humans of the opposite sex to procreate, so allowing the genes within the species to go on . . . and on.

There is also a drive to care for our young, further promoting the genes within the species to go on . . . and on.
The drive to care for our young involves looking after their health and well-being. This promotes their survival until they are old enough to join in with the usual drive for adult humans of the opposite sex to procreate.

So we have an innate drive to care for health and well being. Humans have evolved to be social creatures, which use said social structures, inter-relationships and co-operation, to survive more proficiently than if there was no societal structure. Thus we have an inbuilt drive to look after one another, within our own social groups. Threats from out groups are opposed, and defended off. Friendships and helpfulness from out groups tend to be welcomed - that adds to the ability of all to survive better.

We have an evolved ability to empathise with others, which allows for better defense of the members of our social groups health and well-being. Loss of the health or well-being of members of a society are equivalent of loss of aid and support from  said unwell people or those with limited and insufficient well being.

So we look after other members of our species, and s*u*l*f*c*i*g* your neighbors' kid is the antithesis of that. So that action will raise protestestations, and feelings of Eww/Ughh reactions.
It is known that the human brain has collections of mirror neurones, which arouse feelings in observers, akin to those felt by others in pain, who are ill, or in a state of low well-being.

So morality can be viewed as a pursuit of maximising the health and well-being in all of our species, because we are better off that way, and because we feel the lack of those, when others also lack them, and we know what that feels like from our own experiences. So actions and attitudes that maximise the health and well-being of all other humans is an inbuilt desire, and knowing the consequences of taking various actions allows us to evaluate those actions in terms of how apt they are at doing so.

Health and well-being can be investigated and evaluated scientifically, and doctors and psychologists are professionals, who make it their chosen profession to help in that aim, in particular, using the results of the investigation to guide them. We can study how to look after the health of populations, and we can study how to look after the well-being of those same populations.

However, you do not have to be a professional to be able to mirror the pain inflicted on one's neighbour's kid, by s*u*l*f*c*i*g* your neighbors' kid. So all that is necessary to be moral is to subscribe to maximising the health and well-being in all of our species.

However, it is not necessary to subscribe to that, and as a measure to help in maximising the health and well-being in all of our species, the majority of us can take measures to exclude from society, those who are inclined to do ridiculous things like s*u*l*f*c*i*g* your neighbors' kid, (or theft, or murder or any of the actions deemed to be criminal by a sane and rational society). So we humans get to define what is right or wrong, what is allowed or not, and what adheres to our chosen basis for moral action . . . maximising the health and well-being of all.

And no god is needed for that, and it is therefore a way to live better, with a  reality might 'suck', but with which we have to live. This task is not easy, and does not always work out well, but humanity has come a long way in being more moral, and life is better for all, using the principle I've described. We improve by careful thought and consideration of reality, and how we affect it, and that includes how we affect one another, and reciprocally affect ourselves. Discussion of all of this, and finding any holes in it would be steps in improving it, within the same general framework, and that would be a moral endeavour.

In the spirit of promoting well-being, I wish you health and happiness, Klorophyll.

---

Cheers, Magilla.