(October 23, 2009 at 2:30 pm)Meatball Wrote: Morals don't exist in the sense that there is a universal right and wrong.
Morals do exist in the way that the average human, at the neurological level, recognized where an action is good or bad. This is extremely consistent.
Morals do exist in the way that society, as a whole and in subpartitions, has drafted a very rough outline of what is and isn't acceptable.
They are definitely subjective and have no underlying meaning to them, aside from pack survival and whatnot.
I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that while right and wrong are not universal, good and bad are somehow at least extremely consistent "at the neurological level"? This seems somewhat contradictory. Also what is the standard you are using for "good" and "bad" such that you know it when you see it at a neurological level? And what do you mean by "at the neurological level" to begin with?
Regarding your comment about pack survival and whatnot, if one lives say in the US, from an atheistic world view should they be concerned with genocide in another country on the other side of the world? Should they condemn the genocide as being bad? Because honestly, if I think from a pack survival view point, I could care less what happens on the other side of the world as long as my "pack" will survive. Why would I care if they destroyed themselves as long as my "pack" was ok (again, if I thought from a pack survival viewpoint)?
