>However, there is no "innate" morality in anyone. >Nobody is born with a basic moral compass -- that >is created through environment, upbringing and >circumstance. That is where we differ. It is easy to credit evolution with the building of an internal compass. Let's start with the most simple one...treat your fellow man with respect and compassion and it's a hell of a lot easier to make friends, and friends were even more important to survival thousands of years ago than now. I believe our internal moral compass has evolved. I believe that the human race subverts our internal moral compass much of the time for personal "tribal" gain (and yes, I consider religious and state zealots to be tribal). >If there is no god or state, and you and I are in a >dark alley and you've got a bunch of 100's sticking >out of your pocket, why is it "bad" for me to kill you >and take your money? I'm sorry, I thought I answered that question... My own morals tell me that it is clearly not treating you with respect and compassion to kill you and take your money. >where does the "wrongness" from that action come from? See above. JB
"Nobody is born with a basic moral compass -- that is created through environment, upbringing and circumstance." Prove the above statement to be true. It is nearly universally true that: -People who lie don't like to be lied to. -People who steal don't like to be stolen from. -People who cheat don't like to be cheated. -People who kill don't like to be killed. -People who berate others don't like to be berated. -People who pain others don't like to be pained. -People who are pushy don't like to be pushed. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking people don't like to be caused pain and suffering by others, even if they themselves are causing pain and suffering to others. Morality is about what is right in behavior toward others typically, with a few exceptions about what is considered morally wrong with self destructive behavior when it has consequences on others. To claim that there is no innate sense of what is morally right has been shown false in the writings of Kant.
>Look if you wonder why I'm a little upset: look at >what GG called the person I have devoted my life >to. He did it w/o any foundation or justification - he >just flippantly called him an idiot. And you ask why >I have a twisted perception of humanists? Yes, I can ask why you aren't secure enough in your beliefs to not be baited into becoming upset by a someone who wants nothing more than to prey on peoples insecurities. I generally take the position that I can't be disrespected by someone that I don't respect. Just at him and tell him Jesus loves even him. Might make you feel better rather than upset. Life is too short to be cranked by someone like GG. JB
It's not insecurity in myself. It's insecurity that other people actually might accept what he's posting w/o thinking about it...It is very difficult for me to let a vicious and empty attack go w/o responding. I know, I know, "Turn the other cheek..."
Here's the "rub" though: how do you define the other human to who those standards apply? If you're starving, does it apply? If they killed one of your close friends/relatives, does it apply? If you're inside the womb, does it apply?
>It's not insecurity in myself. It's insecurity that other >people actually might accept what he's posting w/o >thinking about it...It is very difficult for me to let a >vicious and empty attack go w/o responding. Fair enough. Perhaps you can look at it this way... Those that will accept what someone posts without thinking about it deserve what they get. JB
Plus, I still argue that Strong families = strong nation Weak families = weak nation Gut and universal feelings don't say anything about the family and about kids. Do we just let anything go?
oooooohhhh i called jesus an idiot!! how dare i!! lmao i gotta laugh at you, shoeshine. i call jesus an idiot and it ruins your night. ahaha aphexcoil, the following of your statements are total bs: p. s. jesus christ was an asshole.
Even in the animal kingdom it is seen nearly universally seen that: -Animals kill for self preservation and survival only. -Animals care for their young. -Animals of the same class in the most evolved species have societies that protect and care for each other. On the basis of the work done by anthropologists in the study of the societies of primates, there is clearly a sense of what is considered right and wrong behavior for the group members. So we can conclude that instinctively humans are inclined to self preservation, caring for their young, and social grouping that demonstrate care for each other, i.e. promotion of the survival of the members of the group. Clearly, there is a moral compass. It points in the direction of survival and happiness for the individual and the members of the family (group). How that happiness and survival is ultimately achieved is the issue of debate. Even the Framers accepted this to be true: "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." So, there is an innate sense of what is right morally, i.e. perpetuation of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.