Again I am looking for the source of morality. If it is natural, it should be definable. Like the specific properties of an element. From where do wolves and monkeys get their morality? From where do strawmen get their morality? How can we predict what morals a new, previously unseen social animal will have?
This is my problem. I believe intuitively that you are correct. However, if it is truly the nature of things, then we should be able to quantify and explain how it is naturally derived. That's what I'm looking for.
True. But would you kill your mate (a breeder) just because they have a cold? Broken arm? Missing arm (you can still contribute heavily to society without an arm, ex. Stephen Harking)? How about the flu? Ebola? Cancer? Where do you draw the line? In extreme cases, it is likely an overextension of societal preservation, which is a whole other long argument.
Look, stop trying to push this on me. What *I* would do is irrelevant to the point. I KNOW that we act differently than what would be evolutionarily ideal. What I want to know is the source of this difference. From where do morals flow? What, exactly, defines them?
It is not the only cause, but would you argue that it is not an important factor?
I don't know. I would guess that it was a factor, but I don't have enough direct experience to offer an informed opinion. I'm just saying that I'd need more evidence before determining it causal rather than a correlation.
Ok, name any single act that is universally wrong. I can add circumstances that make it morally right for the situation. It's all relative to the circumstances and associated social rules and the judge. Are human sacrifices wrong? Who are you asking? Is letting someone bleed to death wrong? Again who are you asking. In a foreign country someone was run over by a train and it severed their legs. The Americans present wanted to help that person because it was the 'right' thing to do. The locals would not let the Americans do that because it was not 'right' to interfere with natural processes. I personally would have helped them and seen that as the 'right' thing to do, but the locals would think I was a bad person. And I am sorry if you view me as a monster for that.
Well, just for fun, I'll play. Under what circumstances would the extreme torture of thousands of 3-year old children be morally correct? Under what circumstances would the extermination of human life in its entirety be correct?
Not in this case. I agree that it might not always be so. However, in this case, I stand by what I said. I respectfully suggest that if you are implying that someone is incorrect (as you have done), that you provide at least a rationale for why (as I did).
You are a fucking retard. I have specifically stated time after time after time after time that I AM NOT ESPOUSING RELIGION. I WANT A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER SPECIFICALLY SO THAT I DO NOT HAVE TO RELY UPON PLATITUDES EITHER SECULAR OR RELIGIOUS. Did you get that? Do you understand, now? Moron. People like you make me sick.
I realize it wasn't clear from what I asked, but what I want to know is this: From where does morality come? I want to be able to locate the morality gene, or the morality property of carbon, or whatever it ends up being. I want a predictive model. I want diagrams and charts explaining where morality comes from and why. We base our entire lives upon this concept, and yet we can't even define it? Where's the sense in that?
Because if you have the same whirring than many human beings you are supposed to feel that thingy called compassion and empathy that prevent you from being an ass to others. In fact hurting others will even make you feel bad even if you don't believe in a giant squid that spit lightnings from his anal sphincter who blessed the earth with some crazy sacred scriptures given to some random guy some time ago.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise. What I am asking is WHY? From where do morals flow? Why? Everyone seems to be thinking that I am looking for some way to prove religion true or justify immoral actions. Neither could be farther from the truth. I just want to be able to look up morality tables in a science textbook and read about the experiments I could perform myself to verify their authenticity.
But that doesn't explain the differences. Not all animals are social, and not all social animals thrive. Why isn't there more consistency? Why can't we get to a predictive model?
It's more like, how will we quantify how good or evil someone is? No one is all one or the other. At least, I don't think so...but I have no repeatable way to test.
I that that the combination of evolution and social groups inevitably leads to social groups.
What? Social groups inevitably lead to social groups? I agree, but what does a tautology do to explain the source of morals? Nothing you've said addresses the issue: From where do morals come? Are the absolute or relative?
Well, I agree with you for the most part, except that most cultures don't find it immoral to defend yourself or others. The distinction I would make is this: Killing isn't always immoral, but murder is always immoral. In fact, even the 10 commandments take this into account. The commandment is 'Thou shalt not commit murder', a distinction I've always been fascinated by, as it gets rendered 'thou shalt not kill' very often, and those statements are most definitely not equivalent. Not that I'm pushing the 10C as the ultimate arbiter of morality, it's just a famous example of a moral code. (and it's pretty light, only 10 rules)
Actually, that's pretty much false. Religion has heavily borrowed from secular sources to inform it's opinion of what morality is. The Stoics [wikipedia.org] and the Epicureans [wikipedia.org] weren't religious.
What I want to know is from where does morality derive? I don't care if the answer is nature or sky fairies. I just want to know.
Contrary to your opinion, there are reasons beyond absolute good and evil for the rule.
That is not contrary to any opinion I've stated. Please stop assigning opinions to me, unless I've stated them.
A system of morality can be based on religion or it can be based on something else. In fact society's rules are almost always based on the golden rule. It's a little thing called the social contract. If you're actually interested in the moral basis of society, that's the best starting point.
What I want to know is this: Is morality relative or absolute? If absolute, how can I derive its laws?
Our laws may be difficult to defend with logic, reason and science because essentially they're decided by popularity (assuming you live in a democracy). Because we believe in the right to self-government we allow capricious and sometimes wrong laws to be created, though we attempt to limit what can be done by setting basic rules (the constitution, charter of rights, etc.) that can't be contravened. It could be worse, they could be decided by a successive line of individuals who have been declared infallible or who impose their will through force of arms.
Well, the latter is what we are headed toward, and is what societies throughout history have tended toward. I would rather we had a set of equations or repeatable tests so that we could define morality through logic and reason instead of in the ways you mentioned. However, that's only possible if morality is absolute.
In fact, it is my opinion that most religions are a poor source of ethics, the biggest problem being the authoritarian nature of most religions.
We are agreed on this point.
It frequently comes down to a question of is something good because god commands it or is god commanding it because it's good? The former possibility is a path that leads to a very twisted morality where anything is justifiable, the second runs contrary to the Christian, Islamic and Jewish idea of God. It acknowledges that morality exists seperately from God, and therefore there exists and seperate a equally good code of ethics that does not depend on the existence of God. And of course there is the problem of inertia and failure to embrace change. We know from history that the Bible was more often used as an argument for slavery than against it up to the American civil war. Thus we run into the problem that an imprecise, poorly edited series of books written by disparate authors can be used to justify just about any rule you want to make up.
We are agreed here as well. That's why I want something independant of race or religion. Maybe it's a futile hope, because it may be that morality is subjective, and thus arbitrary to at least some extent. That goes against everything I feel, but since I cannot defend feelings with logic and reason, what I feel is irrelevant.
1. Not all religions have the same "moral code," so biology is the only theory that actually makes ANY sense to explain the near universal acceptance of certain "moral" behaviors.
Either that or there are several competing deities, or none at all. Or one is correct and the others are wrong. Or two or three are partially correct. Or...there aren't any actual morals and nothing is either right or wrong. There are more than two possibilities.
2. The things we might describe as "moral" are our adapted behaviors. I'm sure bears have a "moral code," just like any other animal that has evolved for social situations. Their "moral code" is obviously not going to be the same as ours. As usual, religion explains nothing here and science does.
Then what is their moral code, and how can I show that repeatably in the lab? Science doesn't explain it at all. You hand-wave and say, "well they must have a moral code because I believe evolution produces them." That's not science. That's guessing, and faith-based arguments. Those are the whole kinds of things I am attempting to avoid. Faith in the unknown is faith in the unknown is faith in the unknown. I want to have KNOWLEDGE, not faith.
3. You don't know what evolution is. Not uncommon for religious people, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept so you could at least try to learn. Here's a hint to get you started: evolution isn't a force, it's a process.
No one knows what evolution is. At least, not to the point where they can repteably produce it in a laboratory. The evolutionary models we have attempt to explain the past, they can NOT predict the future. With SCIENCE, you can produce the same results with the same procedures. That can't be said of evolution. Please feel free to give me the experimental setup for prodcing evolution, and I'll be happy to reproduce your experiment and let you know if my results parallel yours. That's science. Not hand-waving, guessing, and attempting to warp the facts to fit the theory.
I never said they DON'T have them. I asked which ones they have. I am not trying to prove that morals don't exist. I am trying to deduce their source. I really don't see how you get the one from the other. I have explicitly stated that I believe morality to be absolute, but I just cannot define the laws of it. That clearly shows that I am limited in my understanding, and I am actively seeking to improve it. If you can help, please do. I mean that sincerely.
Well, that certainly was an intelligent response. I don't agree with you, therefore I must be incapable of understanding your argument. Fortunately for me, I don't derive my self-worth from the opinions of retards like you. Show me a modern transitional form. Show me a PREDICTIVE and not EXPLANATORY model of evolution. Show me some REPEATABLE scientific tests verifying your hypothesis. Oh, you can't? Odd, that. Especially since you understand it *so* much better than I do. Oh, and your mom's lousy in bed, too. Your sister sucks dick way better.
I just want to see some logic and reason applied to morality. Yet, it isn't possible to do. The problem is this: If morality is relative, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong, they're just happening in the wrong social group. However, if morality is absolute, from where does it come? Right now I have no answer but I would prefer that morality be absolute. That doesn't necessarily make it so, of course, as my subjective view does not influence objective reality. But I cannot logically derive morals from nature. That may be a lack within me, but then again no one else I've asked has been able to do it either.
No, that's ignorance. The racism UNDERLIES the prejudice against Muslims. It's like saying that if someone hates soccer, they must hate Italians because soccer is very popular in Italy. That's just stupid. Now, if someone already hates Italians, they're not very likely to like Italian soccer players, either. If you hate dark skinned people, you hate them because they are dark skinned, not because they are Catholic. Not because they are members of the local lodge. Not because they are in the glee club. Racism depends upon race. Religion does not. That is why, although racist people might also be anti Muslim, it is not correct to fully conflate the two.
Didn't your mommy ever tell you to treat people the way you expect to be treated?:)
That's my point. Would it still be correct to do that if you mommy didn't tell you to do it? I submit that it would, but then again I was raised in this same society, with that same religious-based belief. I, personally, believe that morality is absolute.
I have never held any religious belief and I can't say I'm particularly frightened of the local cops (in a town of ~3,000...) and yet due to upbringing and many years of pondering the issue of morals the only obvious conclusion is that a functioning society can only grow out of mutual respect.
The only question that matters is this one: Are morals absolute, or relative? If they are relative, then nothing is wrong (or right). If they are absolute, then how are they defined?
Speaking of sociopaths, do you lack empathy or do you just not leave the house much?
I'll go with 'neither'. Are you still beating your wife?
You're considering this from a purely logical point of view.
I know, it's so ODD to want to consider things upon which laws are based with LOGIC. How TERRIBLE of me.
Now go find a real-life friend or acquaintance or neighbor to talk to for an hour or two (unless you look like Ted Kaczynski, in which case clean up a little first) and then ponder whether you would really want to do them harm even without fear of punishment.
Why would I want to hurt friends or acquaintances? Now, the guy that cuts me off in traffic and almost kills me, or the guy that wants to take my wallet, or the guy that smacks my friend, why would I NOT want to hurt them...unless I were lacking emotion, as you suggested.
Would it maybe weigh on your mind a little? That's empathy talking. In other words, functional humans are typically capable of "walking in another man's shoes" mainly because our capacity for emotion, memory, and rational thought allows us to imagine what another individual's emotional state feels like.
Well, that's one idea. I'm not sure it's a good idea to assume causation, though, where there might be correlation only.
Believe what you want, beliefs aren't usually a good argument. Anywho, the burden of proof is on you to find a counterexample.
The Incas had no golden rule, nor did the Maya civilization. Now that I've done what you wanted, you'll weasel the question around and move the goal posts, no doubt.
The idea here is that we are trying to be more social than your average animal.
You are begging the question. You have not provided proof that socialization is causaul of our dominance. Besides, not all of us are trying to be more social. You do not speak for everyone.
Answer: diversity. Now look up evolutionary theory as to why this is important. Example: Have you ever known any skinny guys who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but could do more calculus before breakfast than you can do all day?
Smart animals and physically strong animals survive in nature, too. We keep weak, sick, damaged people alive. There is no evolutionary benefit to that, and if you attempt to assert that there is again, you will only succeed in looking more foolish.
We only need a few, we don't need this to be a norm for it to have a significant impact on how we create societies.
You make assertions left and right, but you never provide any evidence for them. Do you really believe that sociologists would back you up in your assertion that human society was developed around protecting people from psychos? Are you mental?
I would argue that protection from hunger is important too. Besides, this only counts for agrarian cultures anyway.
You mean, like the ones which first developed societies? You know what? The rest of your crap is just like this. I'm not going to bother to wade through any more of it. I'll just skip to the one last relevant part: You said that morals are relative. If you believe that, then no act is ever truly wrong, it's just committed in the wrong society. If you are comfortable with that, you are a monster.
Saint Nicholas was a Christian:) Christmas trees are a misnomer, they should properly be yule logs. (those whacky theists constantly appropriate local customs) As for the last itemr, that's what I don't get. Why people spend so much money on a holiday (holy day) they don't even believe in. And as for the people who call themselves Christian...well, the vast majority of them are indistinguishable from the average atheist in practice anyway. It just baffles me. I don't understand why atheists would be any more likely to celebrate the pagan holidays than the Christian ones. It's not like tree gods are any different from sky gods, after all.
Yeah, but what if I'm not? Even though I personally don't subscribe to any religion, I'm fascinated by theology (not just Christian). I don't think Revelation says anything about saving believers. But that's a whole other issue.
Italy and Spain are mixed up in the minds of a lot of people, too. As in, ask them to find one on the map and they'll point to the other. Does that mean that it's correct to call Italians Spaniards and vice versa? Of course not. Let me give you another always: Islam is always a religion, not a race.
Slashdot Mirror
Again I am looking for the source of morality. If it is natural, it should be definable. Like the specific properties of an element. From where do wolves and monkeys get their morality? From where do strawmen get their morality? How can we predict what morals a new, previously unseen social animal will have?
it's just the nature of things
This is my problem. I believe intuitively that you are correct. However, if it is truly the nature of things, then we should be able to quantify and explain how it is naturally derived. That's what I'm looking for.
True. But would you kill your mate (a breeder) just because they have a cold? Broken arm? Missing arm (you can still contribute heavily to society without an arm, ex. Stephen Harking)? How about the flu? Ebola? Cancer? Where do you draw the line? In extreme cases, it is likely an overextension of societal preservation, which is a whole other long argument.
Look, stop trying to push this on me. What *I* would do is irrelevant to the point. I KNOW that we act differently than what would be evolutionarily ideal. What I want to know is the source of this difference. From where do morals flow? What, exactly, defines them?
It is not the only cause, but would you argue that it is not an important factor?
I don't know. I would guess that it was a factor, but I don't have enough direct experience to offer an informed opinion. I'm just saying that I'd need more evidence before determining it causal rather than a correlation.
Ok, name any single act that is universally wrong. I can add circumstances that make it morally right for the situation. It's all relative to the circumstances and associated social rules and the judge. Are human sacrifices wrong? Who are you asking? Is letting someone bleed to death wrong? Again who are you asking. In a foreign country someone was run over by a train and it severed their legs. The Americans present wanted to help that person because it was the 'right' thing to do. The locals would not let the Americans do that because it was not 'right' to interfere with natural processes. I personally would have helped them and seen that as the 'right' thing to do, but the locals would think I was a bad person. And I am sorry if you view me as a monster for that.
Well, just for fun, I'll play.
Under what circumstances would the extreme torture of thousands of 3-year old children be morally correct?
Under what circumstances would the extermination of human life in its entirety be correct?
Not in this case. I agree that it might not always be so. However, in this case, I stand by what I said.
I respectfully suggest that if you are implying that someone is incorrect (as you have done), that you provide at least a rationale for why (as I did).
You are a fucking retard. I have specifically stated time after time after time after time that I AM NOT ESPOUSING RELIGION. I WANT A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER SPECIFICALLY SO THAT I DO NOT HAVE TO RELY UPON PLATITUDES EITHER SECULAR OR RELIGIOUS. Did you get that? Do you understand, now? Moron. People like you make me sick.
I realize it wasn't clear from what I asked, but what I want to know is this: From where does morality come? I want to be able to locate the morality gene, or the morality property of carbon, or whatever it ends up being. I want a predictive model. I want diagrams and charts explaining where morality comes from and why. We base our entire lives upon this concept, and yet we can't even define it? Where's the sense in that?
Because if you have the same whirring than many human beings you are supposed to feel that thingy called compassion and empathy that prevent you from being an ass to others. In fact hurting others will even make you feel bad even if you don't believe in a giant squid that spit lightnings from his anal sphincter who blessed the earth with some crazy sacred scriptures given to some random guy some time ago.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise. What I am asking is WHY? From where do morals flow? Why? Everyone seems to be thinking that I am looking for some way to prove religion true or justify immoral actions. Neither could be farther from the truth. I just want to be able to look up morality tables in a science textbook and read about the experiments I could perform myself to verify their authenticity.
But that doesn't explain the differences. Not all animals are social, and not all social animals thrive. Why isn't there more consistency? Why can't we get to a predictive model?
It's more like, how will we quantify how good or evil someone is? No one is all one or the other. At least, I don't think so...but I have no repeatable way to test.
See how common sense works both ways? No morality involved in the decision making process. A simple common sense risk-benefit analysis.
Of course there is morality involved. Without morality, there are no laws, and thus no cost. Then your CBA is invalid.
I that that the combination of evolution and social groups inevitably leads to social groups.
What? Social groups inevitably lead to social groups? I agree, but what does a tautology do to explain the source of morals? Nothing you've said addresses the issue: From where do morals come? Are the absolute or relative?
Well, I agree with you for the most part, except that most cultures don't find it immoral to defend yourself or others. The distinction I would make is this: Killing isn't always immoral, but murder is always immoral. In fact, even the 10 commandments take this into account. The commandment is 'Thou shalt not commit murder', a distinction I've always been fascinated by, as it gets rendered 'thou shalt not kill' very often, and those statements are most definitely not equivalent. Not that I'm pushing the 10C as the ultimate arbiter of morality, it's just a famous example of a moral code. (and it's pretty light, only 10 rules)
Actually, that's pretty much false. Religion has heavily borrowed from secular sources to inform it's opinion of what morality is. The Stoics [wikipedia.org] and the Epicureans [wikipedia.org] weren't religious.
What I want to know is from where does morality derive? I don't care if the answer is nature or sky fairies. I just want to know.
Contrary to your opinion, there are reasons beyond absolute good and evil for the rule.
That is not contrary to any opinion I've stated. Please stop assigning opinions to me, unless I've stated them.
A system of morality can be based on religion or it can be based on something else. In fact society's rules are almost always based on the golden rule. It's a little thing called the social contract.
If you're actually interested in the moral basis of society, that's the best starting point.
What I want to know is this: Is morality relative or absolute? If absolute, how can I derive its laws?
Our laws may be difficult to defend with logic, reason and science because essentially they're decided by popularity (assuming you live in a democracy). Because we believe in the right to self-government we allow capricious and sometimes wrong laws to be created, though we attempt to limit what can be done by setting basic rules (the constitution, charter of rights, etc.) that can't be contravened. It could be worse, they could be decided by a successive line of individuals who have been declared infallible or who impose their will through force of arms.
Well, the latter is what we are headed toward, and is what societies throughout history have tended toward. I would rather we had a set of equations or repeatable tests so that we could define morality through logic and reason instead of in the ways you mentioned. However, that's only possible if morality is absolute.
In fact, it is my opinion that most religions are a poor source of ethics, the biggest problem being the authoritarian nature of most religions.
We are agreed on this point.
It frequently comes down to a question of is something good because god commands it or is god commanding it because it's good? The former possibility is a path that leads to a very twisted morality where anything is justifiable, the second runs contrary to the Christian, Islamic and Jewish idea of God. It acknowledges that morality exists seperately from God, and therefore there exists and seperate a equally good code of ethics that does not depend on the existence of God. And of course there is the problem of inertia and failure to embrace change. We know from history that the Bible was more often used as an argument for slavery than against it up to the American civil war. Thus we run into the problem that an imprecise, poorly edited series of books written by disparate authors can be used to justify just about any rule you want to make up.
We are agreed here as well. That's why I want something independant of race or religion. Maybe it's a futile hope, because it may be that morality is subjective, and thus arbitrary to at least some extent. That goes against everything I feel, but since I cannot defend feelings with logic and reason, what I feel is irrelevant.
1. Not all religions have the same "moral code," so biology is the only theory that actually makes ANY sense to explain the near universal acceptance of certain "moral" behaviors.
Either that or there are several competing deities, or none at all. Or one is correct and the others are wrong. Or two or three are partially correct. Or...there aren't any actual morals and nothing is either right or wrong. There are more than two possibilities.
2. The things we might describe as "moral" are our adapted behaviors. I'm sure bears have a "moral code," just like any other animal that has evolved for social situations. Their "moral code" is obviously not going to be the same as ours. As usual, religion explains nothing here and science does.
Then what is their moral code, and how can I show that repeatably in the lab? Science doesn't explain it at all. You hand-wave and say, "well they must have a moral code because I believe evolution produces them." That's not science. That's guessing, and faith-based arguments. Those are the whole kinds of things I am attempting to avoid. Faith in the unknown is faith in the unknown is faith in the unknown. I want to have KNOWLEDGE, not faith.
3. You don't know what evolution is. Not uncommon for religious people, but it really isn't that difficult of a concept so you could at least try to learn. Here's a hint to get you started: evolution isn't a force, it's a process.
No one knows what evolution is. At least, not to the point where they can repteably produce it in a laboratory. The evolutionary models we have attempt to explain the past, they can NOT predict the future. With SCIENCE, you can produce the same results with the same procedures. That can't be said of evolution. Please feel free to give me the experimental setup for prodcing evolution, and I'll be happy to reproduce your experiment and let you know if my results parallel yours. That's science. Not hand-waving, guessing, and attempting to warp the facts to fit the theory.
I never said they DON'T have them. I asked which ones they have. I am not trying to prove that morals don't exist. I am trying to deduce their source. I really don't see how you get the one from the other. I have explicitly stated that I believe morality to be absolute, but I just cannot define the laws of it. That clearly shows that I am limited in my understanding, and I am actively seeking to improve it. If you can help, please do. I mean that sincerely.
Well, that certainly was an intelligent response. I don't agree with you, therefore I must be incapable of understanding your argument. Fortunately for me, I don't derive my self-worth from the opinions of retards like you. Show me a modern transitional form. Show me a PREDICTIVE and not EXPLANATORY model of evolution. Show me some REPEATABLE scientific tests verifying your hypothesis. Oh, you can't? Odd, that. Especially since you understand it *so* much better than I do. Oh, and your mom's lousy in bed, too. Your sister sucks dick way better.
I just want to see some logic and reason applied to morality. Yet, it isn't possible to do. The problem is this: If morality is relative, then nothing is right and nothing is wrong, they're just happening in the wrong social group. However, if morality is absolute, from where does it come? Right now I have no answer but I would prefer that morality be absolute. That doesn't necessarily make it so, of course, as my subjective view does not influence objective reality. But I cannot logically derive morals from nature. That may be a lack within me, but then again no one else I've asked has been able to do it either.
No, that's ignorance. The racism UNDERLIES the prejudice against Muslims. It's like saying that if someone hates soccer, they must hate Italians because soccer is very popular in Italy. That's just stupid. Now, if someone already hates Italians, they're not very likely to like Italian soccer players, either. If you hate dark skinned people, you hate them because they are dark skinned, not because they are Catholic. Not because they are members of the local lodge. Not because they are in the glee club. Racism depends upon race. Religion does not. That is why, although racist people might also be anti Muslim, it is not correct to fully conflate the two.
That whoosh, that was the sound of wind whistling in one of your ears and out the other, right?
Noted. :)
Didn't your mommy ever tell you to treat people the way you expect to be treated? :)
That's my point. Would it still be correct to do that if you mommy didn't tell you to do it? I submit that it would, but then again I was raised in this same society, with that same religious-based belief. I, personally, believe that morality is absolute.
I have never held any religious belief and I can't say I'm particularly frightened of the local cops (in a town of ~3,000...) and yet due to upbringing and many years of pondering the issue of morals the only obvious conclusion is that a functioning society can only grow out of mutual respect.
The only question that matters is this one: Are morals absolute, or relative? If they are relative, then nothing is wrong (or right). If they are absolute, then how are they defined?
Speaking of sociopaths, do you lack empathy or do you just not leave the house much?
I'll go with 'neither'. Are you still beating your wife?
You're considering this from a purely logical point of view.
I know, it's so ODD to want to consider things upon which laws are based with LOGIC. How TERRIBLE of me.
Now go find a real-life friend or acquaintance or neighbor to talk to for an hour or two (unless you look like Ted Kaczynski, in which case clean up a little first) and then ponder whether you would really want to do them harm even without fear of punishment.
Why would I want to hurt friends or acquaintances? Now, the guy that cuts me off in traffic and almost kills me, or the guy that wants to take my wallet, or the guy that smacks my friend, why would I NOT want to hurt them...unless I were lacking emotion, as you suggested.
Would it maybe weigh on your mind a little? That's empathy talking. In other words, functional humans are typically capable of "walking in another man's shoes" mainly because our capacity for emotion, memory, and rational thought allows us to imagine what another individual's emotional state feels like.
Well, that's one idea. I'm not sure it's a good idea to assume causation, though, where there might be correlation only.
Believe what you want, beliefs aren't usually a good argument. Anywho, the burden of proof is on you to find a counterexample.
The Incas had no golden rule, nor did the Maya civilization. Now that I've done what you wanted, you'll weasel the question around and move the goal posts, no doubt.
The idea here is that we are trying to be more social than your average animal.
You are begging the question. You have not provided proof that socialization is causaul of our dominance. Besides, not all of us are trying to be more social. You do not speak for everyone.
Answer: diversity. Now look up evolutionary theory as to why this is important. Example: Have you ever known any skinny guys who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, but could do more calculus before breakfast than you can do all day?
Smart animals and physically strong animals survive in nature, too. We keep weak, sick, damaged people alive. There is no evolutionary benefit to that, and if you attempt to assert that there is again, you will only succeed in looking more foolish.
We only need a few, we don't need this to be a norm for it to have a significant impact on how we create societies.
You make assertions left and right, but you never provide any evidence for them. Do you really believe that sociologists would back you up in your assertion that human society was developed around protecting people from psychos? Are you mental?
I would argue that protection from hunger is important too. Besides, this only counts for agrarian cultures anyway.
You mean, like the ones which first developed societies? You know what? The rest of your crap is just like this. I'm not going to bother to wade through any more of it. I'll just skip to the one last relevant part: You said that morals are relative. If you believe that, then no act is ever truly wrong, it's just committed in the wrong society. If you are comfortable with that, you are a monster.
Saint Nicholas was a Christian :)
Christmas trees are a misnomer, they should properly be yule logs. (those whacky theists constantly appropriate local customs)
As for the last itemr, that's what I don't get. Why people spend so much money on a holiday (holy day) they don't even believe in. And as for the people who call themselves Christian...well, the vast majority of them are indistinguishable from the average atheist in practice anyway. It just baffles me. I don't understand why atheists would be any more likely to celebrate the pagan holidays than the Christian ones. It's not like tree gods are any different from sky gods, after all.
Yeah, but what if I'm not?
Even though I personally don't subscribe to any religion, I'm fascinated by theology (not just Christian). I don't think Revelation says anything about saving believers. But that's a whole other issue.
Italy and Spain are mixed up in the minds of a lot of people, too. As in, ask them to find one on the map and they'll point to the other. Does that mean that it's correct to call Italians Spaniards and vice versa? Of course not. Let me give you another always: Islam is always a religion, not a race.