My reasoning in rejecting eternal torture/hell...

[Mystical]

If you say morality is only within ourselves does this mean if we meet other sentient life forms on other planets, we can't extend morality to them? Does it mean it's possible it will be morally right for them to want to exterminate us for example if their evolution and society programmed them to think that way?

No I'm saying that just existing and being self aware to a certain degree implies certain existential rights. An alien I would imagine could have socially evolved to believe killing us is fine. Sorta like how America got formed at the expense of the native americans. But that doesn't change the fact that they were born into this universe, and we were too. Thus we're equal by default.

When I said morality lies within ourselves, I meant biologically we have evolved to have them for a social reason.
There are case studies that moral decisions are made and the parts of the brain that become active are responsible for logic, the other for emotions. Thus logic can be skewed by emotions, and vice versa.

March 22, 2007 New York Times
Brain Injury Said to Affect Moral Choices
By BENEDICT CAREY

Damage to an area of the brain behind the forehead, inches behind the eyes, transforms the way people make moral judgments in life-or-death situations, scientists reported yesterday. In a new study, people with this rare injury expressed increased willingness to kill or harm another person if doing so would save others’ lives.

The findings are the most direct evidence that humans’ native revulsion to hurting others relies on a part of neural anatomy, one that evolved before the higher brain regions responsible for analysis and planning.

The researchers emphasize that the study was small and that the moral decisions were hypothetical; the results cannot predict how people with or without brain injuries will act in real life-or-death situations. Yet the findings, appearing online yesterday, in the journal Nature, confirm the central role of the damaged region, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is thought to give rise to social emotions, like compassion.

Previous studies showed that this region was active during moral decision making, and that damage to it and neighboring areas from severe dementia affected moral judgments. The new study seals the case by demonstrating that a very specific kind of emotion-based judgment is altered when the region is offline. In extreme circumstances, people with the injury will even endorse suffocating an infant if that would save more lives.

“I think it’s very convincing now that there are at least two systems working when we make moral judgments,” said Joshua Greene, a psychologist at Harvard who was not involved in the study. “There’s an emotional system that depends on this specific part of the brain, and another system that performs more utilitarian cost-benefit analyses which in these people is clearly intact.”
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/p...cortex.htm

Skewed from what standard? Wrong according to what? If it's not wrong according to their own morality, then why isn't simply then a case, like an animal that doesn't know any better?

It's not the case because it's not the case? Our objective perception of reality does not make reality, reality. Reality is reality because it's reality. The standard is simply inherited through exisistance. As for animals: this about sums up my thoughts.

But research across many different species has presented a very different picture. What we appear to have is a deep set of sympathetic behavioral impulses that are fundamental parts of our nervous systems. The suffering of others isn’t just a forced concern—monkeys, great apes, rats, and even mice all exhibit remarkable behavioral interest in the welfare of others, particularly, but not limited to, their own species. This research suggests that basic impulses of sympathy, consolation, empathy, generosity, kindness, reciprocity, and fairness run all the way into our pre-human evolutionary history.

Our nervous systems are built to feel an emotional contagion from the pains and pleasures of others. Higher cognitive functions allow us to interpret those feelings in terms of empathy for others by recognizing the situation that produced the feelings and the reasons for the other being’s emotions. Even higher cognitive abilities, laid on top by evolutionary stages, make it possible for us to understand our own feelings and those of others by fully modeling and adopting the other being’s perspectives.

Even monkeys know what's unfair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

Another experiment on universal morality focused on Rhesus monkeys illustrates the sense of community and avoidance of harm of community members (Masserman, 1964). Operator monkeys were trained to pull a chain to receive food, and another chain when signaled with a red and blue light, respectively, however on the fourth day of the experiment, the monkeys were paired, and when the operator monkey pulled the chains, the other would receive a shock. Two-thirds of the monkeys showed discretion in pulling the chains, especially after receiving the shocks, and if they had previous interaction with their pair, and many of the monkeys even avoided pulling the chains to feed themselves, going weeks without eating.

Second Scenario:

The train problem consists of two scenarios. In the first, one must pull a lever to direct a moving train away from five people and toward one person, and in the second, one must push a person under a train, thereby stopping it in time to save five people. In a wide survey, many people regarded the option in the first scenario to be ethical, however, an overwhelming number of subjects strongly dissented the morality of the second scenario, yet they were unable to articulate the ethical difference from the first scenario (Hauser, Cushman & Young, 1997). In both situations one is asked to harm one for the good of the community. The sources of this inconsistency are, according to a recent article by Steven Pinker, universal morals.
In a recent study, fMRI’s monitored brain activity when subjects were presented with the “train problem” (Greene, 2001). In all subjects considering the first scenario, only the area of the frontal lobes linked to logic, showed any signs of excessive activity. However, when presented with the second scenario, the medial area of the frontal lobes, linked to interpersonal emotions, as well as that linked to logic and the anterior cingulate cortex, which registers conflicts between different urges. These findings, as well as those of the previous study illustrate moral battle between emotions and logic, and the universal victory of emotions.

The ubiquity of the cerebral response to wrongdoing suggests some evolutionary benefit to morality. Psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham argued that all evolutionary morals fit into five broad categories: avoidance of harm, fairness, a sense of community, respect for authority, and purity (Haidt, & Graham 2006). Although these are distinct human ideals, they are also represented in animals, illustrating evolutionary benefits. The experiment on Rhesus Monkeys (Masserman, Wechkin & Terris, 1964) reflects avoidance of harm; the hierarchy of dominance reflects respect for authority; animal communities inherently reflect an emphasis on fairness and reciprocation, and avoidance of certain foods reflects the importance of purity,
This new concept of a universal and unwritten moral code could lead to major changes in the ways social interactions and ethics are studied. With further exploration, these universal morals could prove to be the foundations of anything from someone holding a door open for another to the world’s major religions. Perhaps in time, we will be able to better understand the motivations behind our instinctual moral responses.
http://intro2psych.wordpress.com/2009/05...-morality/

There does seem to be a right and wrong in life, but that can be described as logical humanism.

You just said they were skewed from a morality, and it doesn't mean they weren't wrong, and now are saying there doesn't seem to be a right or wrong in real life. I'm a little confused to your position.

I'm speaking about existencial rights really..Logic dictates we each have certain rights by just being here.

You said there was no right or wrong, now are saying the caste system is wrong...however, how do you prove rights even exist? What is the right of an antelope? What is the right of a cow? What is the right of a horse? What makes humans all so special that we deserve more rights?

I never said people have more rights. What makes my birth into this earth any different from a rabbits? We're both equal if not separate species of beings. Just because we have different biology and measures of consciousness does not mean that if I eat a rabbit, that it's fair. A lion kills an antelope, that's fact. That's also how they survive. Survival conquers most other reasons usually. Animals tend to be more concerned with the rights of their own species but it does happen that they can extend their emotions to another species, and override their survival instinct.

A lioness in Kenya has adopted another baby oryx - her third in as many months, game wardens at the northern Samburu National Park have reported.
The lioness is said to allow a female oryx several minutes each day to feed the new-born calf.

The lioness is said to be "fiercely protective" of the oryx - becoming very aggressive when any human come near.

Three adult onyxes have been seen near the unlikely duo though, one of which is believed to be the mother.

Grief stricken

When the last calf was eaten by a male lion while she slept, the lioness was said to have been stricken with grief - she went around roaring in anger.

Cases of lionesses showing maternal affection for animals they would normally see as prey are not unprecedented, conservationist Daphne Sheldrick said.

"It does happen, but it's quite unusual. Lions, like all the other species, including human beings, have this kind of feelings for babies," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1905363.stm

This is the best definition I've found on morality: morality is a complex structure to maintain social cohesion and enhance survivability among social creatures.

This can be true of either morality being a delusion (all subjective) or being objective. However, by this definition, it seems more likely that it's all subjective (ie. a delusion).

I disagree that it's a delusion, that would mean there is no evidence to prove it's existence correct?

Ok let's talk about somethings.

From perspective of evolution, we come to believe in things that work to enhance our species.

I will give you an example. It maybe that living without kids or a wife, we would be JUST as happy or even happier, but this will not enhance our species survivability and those without kids wouldn't pass on genes, so then it would favour those who believe that having kids and a wife will make you happier.

Furthermore, we will come to believe there is more happiness in companionship with a wife, that is more than simply biological forces making us happier.

The enjoyability of sex for example, would be there, because it works.

This what evolution would do. Whatever works for our survivability would be passed on. Suppose a mutation happened and a lifeform didn't enjoy sex or have a drive for it. It would most likely not pass on it's genes.

Agreed.

Now as far as believing morality and having morals, it was definitely needed for cohesion and survivability. But was it ever something objective in a human? Or was it based on following praise consensus of society?

Even in mice, morality is observed.

Why are we humans most likely to agree upon the morals of our people? I'm Canadian and it ends up I am a strong advocate of free health care...If I was American, there be a huge chance I wouldn't be.

Side note: I'm American, and everyone I've talked to besides one person is PRO universal healthcare. That one exception: Yeah he's a pharmacist/DOCTOR. As far as I'm aware, the only ones opposed to free healthcare are the assholes who are profiteering freely on healthcare at the moment. This doesn't mean I advocate limitations on business, it just means that theres shit needs fixin. 20k for a procedure that costed 1,500k is ridiculous, and government regulation is absolutely fair. The only reason it is opposed is because of the lobbyists for those who run the system. Americans are begging for free healthcare, and are dying in the meantime.

We follow praise consensus. We follow myth of our societies as well. We follow their beliefs. Just look at "cool". "Cool" has nothing objective about it, it's simply a type of praise of society, that seems to be entirely without any rational basis. But everyone wants to be cool.

School is cool

Internal biological components and external components make survival more probable through sociability.

Now there may be a natural drive of humans to come to believe in the praise of their parents.

What we see as universal morals would be nothing more than what is necessary for each society to function. It doesn't make it all objective by being universal.

Furthermore, even if it wasn't a drive towards praise consensus of society and was somehow within us.

Obviously when we started off as primitive animals in evolution, we didn't have an objective morality. So when did it become objective? How did ever gain objectivity within us?

Now we're going to have to take a look at consciousness to answer that question. Is a starfish not conscious? It's not the same level as humanity but it is conscious. Morality from what I've found comes when level of consciousness reaches identifying not only ones own suffering but that of others. Mice can do this.

Furthermore, is the complication of myth. Obviously in our primitive forms, we would not have had a complicated philosophy. No books to write. Not much discussion. To teach morals, you needed myths.

I can't help but think about when I am with a 1yr old who doesn't even know the word no: if they try to touch something dangerous I slap their hand. They look at you, dumbfounded, then try again and you slap their hand. Depending on the individual, eventually they learn not to touch that thing when you're there. Sans verbal language.

But even if justifying morality, how relevant was teaching of a spirit and gods relevant? Judgment of God(s) showing there is objective value to our choices.

If you went back in time, and never had myth, perhaps morality would never have developed to what it is within us. Perhaps it is a type of myth itself from naturalism perspective.

Even if I didn't tell the baby, "Dont touch that or God will be mad at you," that baby won't touch it after you taught it not to.

And say there is an objective morality within us - it's another thing to say we can know we have this objective morality from naturalism perspective.

It's one thing to have it, but from naturalism perspective, how would we distinguish between what we know from what we come to strongly believe due to evolution favouring that belief?

Honestly, I'm outta my league in the conversation because, I'm not concrete in my beliefs I merely have an idea of what I believe is going on around me. Without proof none of us can know: but I'll look at the proof out there and draw my conclusions based on that rather than assume in that which I don't see proof for.