Excavating The Empty Tomb

[The Grand Nudger]

I understand what you're saying. The problem is, as a selfish creature (hypothetical situation), I look at evolved altruistic traits as null and void.

You won't hear much disagreement from me on that count.

There's no stopping someone that has a different genetic make-up of what feels morally right or wrong.

Of course there is, hopefully it won;t have to come to "stopping them" - but that does happen.

You can't tell a child rapist that what he's doing is morally wrong if it feels natural and "OK" to him.

Of course you can, and perhaps- if he's a sufficiently lucent child rapist- you could draw a valid negative parallel by comparison and agreement. Thing is....I bet he'd still be "a child rapist".

If all we're going by is evolved morals and ethics, then anything goes. Like I said, no objective compass.

That's ridiculous, anything goes so long as we're going by "anything goes" - which is not what our evolved morality appears to be comprised of. Neither you nor I - nor the child rapist- has any objective moral compass...our results from our varying compasses differ (though you and I are less likely to deviate from each other than we are from the child rapist - I'd wager)-but at least two out of three of us manage to be "moral" - and we have a way to deal with the third.

Of course you can play the, "that's why we have society" card. But that still doesn't the answer the question of what is good and what is bad. Merely opinions.

Meh, why would I need to play any card bud- is this a game? "Merely" opinions, that's what you have-that's what I have, and that's okay. I still don't see the problem? I mean, we'd both have a problem if someone else had a moral fact and you and I were sitting here with our opinions - and we'd have to address that when it happened. In the meantime, we seem to be doing okay.