Is There a Point To Living a Moral Life?

[Angrboda]

Are you suggesting there are qualities that humans possess that aren't biological? Whether they are needed to survive or not, or are imperative, if the only qualities which exist are biological, then the set of non-biological qualities is empty, and your assertion is empty and false.

What qualities are you suggesting are not biological? Your statement seems to imply a dualism, whether property or substance. Are you a property or substance dualist?

Yes, I am suggesting that there are qualities that human possess that aren't biological - and biological here refers to "of genetic origin".

When you decide to start dealing from your own private dictionary, please do us a favor and warn us. This is not what biological means. Full stop. This is an equivocation, and seems to clearly indicate that you understand neither biology nor evolution. (I'm also persuaded you don't understand the first thing about morality, but that contention hasn't fully clarified itself yet and will have to await another day.) Moreover, I suspect this equivocation is driven by your need to justify your compatibilist views and your moral theories. You're trying to carve a space where no space exists because you can't reach your conclusions any other way.

I regard human qualities related to consciousness - such as capacity to reason, sentience etc. - as non-biological in nature, even though I do accept that their mode of operation if biological. And no, this does not imply substance dualism.

This is nonsensical double-speak. I can only assume you're dealing from your own private dictionary again. When you feel like communicating in English, please let me know.