Lorikeet wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:29 am
Morality begins with the act.
I'm sorry -- I don't understand this claim. It might be right, in some sense, but it's too vague. Can you clear it up for me?
Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.
Okay; that means you're a moral objectivist. I can accept that.
They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.
Then they aren't moral at all...merely pragmatic. And since they "evolve," why couldn't a moral imperative
against abortion, or
for war, or making prostitution and slavery "moral," also "evolve" out of them in the future? How do we know where this haphazard process of "moral evolution" is leading us, before we get there?
For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.
So...your theory is that a prohibition which almosts all ancient societies have, and is as near to universal as can be, is actually driven by the primitive native's awareness that it will produce birth defects? How would all these ancient societies even know about genetics?
The immorality of in-group violence is not based on human tastes but on the fact that in-group violence decreases group cohesion and harmony, nullifying the advantages of cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
Then why is war one of the most persistent facts of history? That theory would suggest it would be the first thing to "evolve out" of our moral beliefs. But clearly, not only did that not happen, but it isn't even happening today...at least, not in Ukraine, Israel, Iran...
None of this is arbitrary but founded no objective reality.
If it's founded on no objective reality, then it IS arbitrary, by definition. But you also said that they are "not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered." So where do they come from, and why are we obligated to follow them?
Aren't you saying that "evolution" is an "objective reality," and that morality is founded on some sort of evolutionary imperative? In that case, you have to be arguing that morality is founded on the objective reality of evolution, don't you?
Such a tangle of claims. Can you sort it out for me?