Atla wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 04, 2020 1:38 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:17 am
So, like Peter,
Therefore, you are cornered to accept it is not morally wrong if anyone wants to kill you rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.
The above do not sound nice, but I have to introduce such drastic examples with the hope to get the message through.
The point is, there is no absolute-objective morality [e.g. Platonic Forms or God moral laws] but there are justifiable relative objective moral facts just like how Science derives its relative objective scientific facts.
Do you dispute that scientific facts are not objective?
What empirical evidence do you mean by the way? We have evidence that during the 4 billion years of life on this planet, most organisms survived by eating other organisms. Humans also have to kill plants or plants+animals. And most organisms (including a few humans) don't even have any morality.
While there are eating and killing of each other inter-species, there is the core principle of self-preservation within intra-species, especially of the higher animals.
Whilst there are intraspecies competition, the indication such competition is by default for the long good of the species, i.e. the preservation of the species.
Show me which specifically identified species [higher animals] strive to eat and kill each other within the species?
From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.
Morality is inherent to the human species.
There are research on babies of less than 12 months [not yet significantly influenced by nurture] that demonstrated human babies has an inherent propensity for morality.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with
At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
Lol okay, so you admitted that there is no absolute-objective morality. I accept your admission of defeat.
WTF, I have always rejected absolute-objective morality [e.g. Platonic Forms or God moral laws] - I have posted that from the start.
Quickly changing the subject to non-absolute morality, and then claiming that I was arguing against that one, and saying that I was cornered, is pathetic. Drawing a parallel with science is also pathetic.
As above, there is no change in the subject.
You are arguing with along with Peter's idea, thus the consequences.
Denying the existence of genuinely amoral people is pathetic, yes they are rare, but denying their existence is a great source of the world's evils.
It is human nature
all humans are to be born with two legs and two arms.
That is the fact of human nature.
But no one in the know [as evident] will deny there are people who are born with one or no arms and legs.
Thus my point;
It is human nature
all humans are to be born with a natural propensity for morality
That is the fact of human nature and a fact.
As such there are moral facts [as justified] extended from the above.
Is it morally right or wrong to beat dishonest idiots like Veritas into a pulp?
It is legally wrong to beat someone into a pulp, thus it same [as justified] in the moral perspective.
Obviously, it is morally wrong to beat someone into a pulp.
It is an idiotic fool like you who insist it is not morally
wrong for anyone wants to kill you, rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.
The only recourse to you [if you are not living in an unowned isolated island] is the legal way or just cry miserably.