(September 2, 2012 at 5:12 pm)elunico13 Wrote: There aren't any rational objections here. They're all arbitrary. Kind of like the other thread. I see more emotional responses from you than anything. Why do you get like this if truth is "on your side"?Arbitrary?
And what do you call this statement? "That's called chemistry, which is what you believe you are."
Pots and kettles.
(September 2, 2012 at 9:22 am)Haydn Wrote: Yes we are taught by our parents when we our younger , but by wider society also as we get older. It's a bit like i said earlier about a pack Wolves punishing misdermeanors with a snarl , or a bite. They teach eachother by enforcing the code like we do , but do they teach eachother to bring a sick or injured pack member a lump of meat? And for that matter , can we actually learn to selflessly do good for a fellow human being , with no perceivable benefit other then the expected gratitude ?
I think mainly not , but i can see a Dawinian advantage to it.
(September 2, 2012 at 5:12 pm)elunico13 Wrote: So our parents and then society determine what is moral? Did I understand you correctly?Our "morals", necessarily complex because of our extraordinarily complicated social interactions, are derived from evolutionary traits selecting for altruism and empathy; which incidentally we share with many other species. There are no absolute "morals". The concept of morals is a construct with its origins in the 14thC - it's original usage pertaining to "correct behaviour in society", or more aligned with customs, social mores and norms or ethics. Your obsession with the providence of "Morals" is entirely subjective.
