Pervasiveness of Religion

[yoda55]

The violence, or lack of it, doesn't stem from an instinct for specie preservation. If specie preservation was an instinct, then all would err in favor of life. Since it isn't an instinct, it must be a conscious decision of one individual to inflict harm on another.

Incorrect reasoning. If you assume that they are "erring", then there is no way to establish that it is not in favor of life. In fact, outside the human society, most of violence is in fact perpetrated by instinct and in favor of life.

Conceded that “err” was a mistake in phrasing the statement. If you noticed to whom I was responding, then you might have caught onto the implicit tie between my phrase “specie preservation” and the reply-to-quote topping my post (that referred to human purposed fatalities). [Note: Other intra-specie violence rarely manifests as fatality, but rather establishes superiority between any two contestants to access mates or food. The losing contestant misses the chance to breed, or to access a limited food supply, and expires having not perpetuated his DNA qualities. But, the fatality resulting from this missed opportunity is not the overt act of the winner upon the loser – it’s a consequence of the missed opportunity.]

If it's a conscious decision, then there is a value judgment being committed - one where the violence perpetrator holds his own preservation worth more than that of the victim. It is as easily reversed - indicating that the motivation is subjective. And, the motive is selfishness. If selfishness were removed, and replaced with altruism, then more people would survive to die of natural causes (e.g. old age).

Wrong once more. If it is a subjective value judgment that is being made then you cannot say that the perpetrator holds his own preservation to be worth more than the victims. That may or may not be the case. Further, if selfishness is removed and replaced with altruism, then a lot more people would die not only of violence, but also hunger, poverty and disease. Some of the worst instances of violence are committed by those who believe themselves to be acting altruistically or for the greater good.

I disagree. A human being is, by his very nature, selfish – observe the infant’s actions. His only concern is discomfort from hunger, personal hygiene, or physical exhaustion – qualities of survival. That self-primacy condition does not disappear with growth into adulthood. The violent perpetrator faces consideration of what happens if the roles of perpetrator and victim are reversed. The perpetrator asks, “Would I want to have happen to me that which I plan to do (extinction) to the victim?” If he asks it, and finds the postulated result repulsive, he is persuaded to consider the potential of life equality between the two of them – an ethical value judgment. If the judgment prevents his continued intent on violence, he succeeds in altruism (Merriam-Webster: ‘(An) unselfish regard for, or devotion to, the welfare of others.’).

Looking at history, and around at the progress of which mankind is capable, we note that building and progress are best served by cooperation (where the end product, and/or knowledge, is at the very least the sum of the individual contributions).

Thus making cooperation a very selfish endeavor.

The predominant number of improvements in quality of life we have because of cooperation – building off of others’ ideas and accomplishments. You wouldn’t be participating on this forum if electricity wasn’t harnessed (however produced), transmission of electric power wasn’t invented, micro-design wasn’t possible, silicon computer chips weren’t manufactured (cheaply), circuits weren’t designed into computers, software applications weren’t hosted on computers, and you weren’t taught verbal and written language. All these are manifestation of cooperation. Each contributor added to the sum of the individual capabilities of contemporaries or predecessors… You’re also probably sitting in an air-conditioned house/apartment, sipping a delicious reconstituted freeze-dried or canned (preserved) drink which was heated in a microwave oven or in a percolator. Civilization isn’t built on individual selfishness. If all human beings were motivated by selfishness, then very few technical advances would have occurred. I would go so far as to predict advancement not much beyond subsistence farming with stone and bone implements…

If building and progress are superior to further the greater benefit, then can we say the "greater benefit" is a "moral" foundation?

Nope. That's just your subjective value judgment.

I disagree – see the argument provided in the previous statement treatment. You must have a condition in mind where building and progress is not superior – what is that condition?

Noting that the universality (collective acknowledgement and adherence) to this "moral" point is agreed to by all, then can we say it is an "absolute morality"?

Nope. Since there is no collective acknowledgement and adherence to the principle and universality does not equal absoluteness.

Here, you responded before my final revision was saved. The current form of my ending statement is different from this. But, to respond to this version of the ending – it should read:
“If the universality is collectively acknowledged by and adhered (i.e. agreed) to by all, then can we say it is an ‘absolute morality’?”
I disagree with your response, in context of my revised statement... When an individual holds a value, it is subjective (if only considered in the context of the individual). As the number of human beings agreeing with that value increases, then the subjectivity decreases. When the entire human population agrees with the value, then the very nature of the inclusiveness (all participants belonging to the group) makes the value absolute – for there is no other human being who disagrees.