Where did you get the above ignorant and narrow minded idea? Note the fact;Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 5:59 pmNo.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:59 amYourSculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:11 am There is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species; but there is nothing to mandate specific rules in morality, according to the theory. There is nothing objective about morality except that fact that we are moralistic beings. But the existence of psychopathy is evidence that traits have variability, as do all features of humanity. Can we call a psychopath a human, yes. WOuld everyone say they were moral, no. Their idea of moral good, seems to be directed to themselves. and who they can manipulate.
"there is no doubt that our moral nature is an important part of our success as a species"
implied that our 'moral nature' is something universal within human nature, i.e. independent of any individual beliefs, opinions or judgments, thus it is objective subject to verification and justification.
In this sense our moral nature, i.e. morality is objective.
Morality-proper as inherent within human nature is not about rules, obligations or laws of 'right' or 'wrong' enforceable upon individuals from external authorities, customs nor social conventions.
Since all humans has a moral nature [morality properly defined] the point is human need to allow this moral potential to unfold naturally for its intended evolutionary purpose.
Since evolution is a relatively new idea it is no surprise that using it as a moral standard is also very recent.
ENter Hitler and Survival of the fittest.
Not exactly my idea of objective truth.
Rather Darwin's Theory of Evolution is leveraged on the Principle of Natural Selection.Darwin did not consider the process of evolution as the survival of the fittest; he regarded it as survival of the fitter, because the “struggle for existence” (a term he took from English economist and demographer Thomas Malthus) is relative and thus not absolute.
Instead, the winners with respect to species within ecosystems could become losers with a change of circumstances.
Link
Note again this point from the referred article of the OP;
You are ignorant of human nature.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:09 amDarwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.A Sense of Darwin’s Morality
Darwin’s Theory Of The Moral Sense, its close connection with the social instincts, and the extensive mental powers it demands, is well-argued, and based on extensive study and observation.
The moral sense, one is led to conclude, is not only a product of evolution, it [the moral sense] also implies an objective normative ethic (that is, practical knowledge about right and wrong).
If the moral sense, like sociability, is innate, it might be something like a predisposition due to a deep moral code.
That deep code would include only a few general ethical norms, such as care for the survival, reproduction and well-being of oneself, others, one’s community and one’s habitat, and a bias for reciprocity.
It might be said to constitute a minimal objective normative ethic.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Dar ... telligence
Again you are exposing your own ignorance as the real complete idiot.You are the complete idiot.
You say "intended purpose". Yet evolution is a unintentional effect of change. Thus no intended purpose.
Since I am non-theistic, there is no way I am referring to some God commanded teleological purpose re Creationism.
Note I stated "its intended EVOLUTIONARY purpose"
Whatever is grounded in human nature has some biologically 'intended' purpose.
The human organs, senses, faculties has their biologically 'intended' purpose, i.e. their specific function.
Therefore the moral sense faculty has its intended EVOLUTIONARY purpose which is basically a biological grounded function, thus it is a fact, i.e. a moral fact.
Yet psychopaths are also humans. And evolution is the result of their survival.
But such expectation of greater morality is too late for the current or next few to achieve due to our current psychological state which need time to change neuronally. But moral change for the better is possible for future generations provided we take the right steps now.
What is counter to morality are evil acts.
Psychopathy is evil and is active within people who have an inefficient or damage moral mechanism in their brain. There is in general only about 1% of psychopaths and not all are malignant with high propensity to commit evil acts.
What is 'good' to a psychopath is not what is 'good' within the context of morality-proper [as defined].
Psychopaths have their uses, as any MAGA voter
The average human has 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 of connectors.
Each neuron as a biological cell has 3 billion pairs of "coding letters".
Can you imagine the possible combinations within the billions of neurons and 3 billion pairs of letters in the DNA that must be connect correctly to ensure a person is a non-psychopath.
As such the possibility of errors in the connectivity are very natural and possible thus giving rise to variations from the norms.
Psychopaths are thus perverts from what is expected from the norms.
Since the consequences of psychopathy contradict the objectives of morality [as defined], malignant psychopathy has to be modulated morally.
You are posting your views like a headless chicken because you did not define your morality specifically.
My point;
Darwin acknowledged in his book there is a deep Moral Sense within humanity that is adaptive and constituted by a minimal objective normative ethic.
This moral sense is represented by physical neuronal connectivity as a 'program' within the mind and brain which is thus a physical fact. Since these are related to morality, they are objective moral facts.