Killing Babies No Different from Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…
If I weren’t pro-life, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Again, our aims are the same. You want to protect the people on both sides of the birth canal, I want to protect the people on both sides of the chromosomal divide.

…[/quote]

Or, as my friend Maimonides had observed:

“There is no difference between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings, since the love and the tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning but by feeling, and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living things.”

122

What about Data?

124

[quote]Karado wrote:

YEAH!!!..Um,what he said…That date night Bonobo/Human sex and offspring thing was just WAY off big time, hypotheticals usually should have a basis in some fuckin reality, but then again Reagan used the Alien Invasion theory at the U.N. to strongly suggest a unity in all of Mankind in the unlikely scenario we’ll be invaded by little green men. [/quote]

Well, shit, Colonel Mustytard, you should have mentioned that you wanted a hypothetical based on some fuckin’ reality.

Then I would have put some fuckin’ Nephilim in the fuckin’ story.

Fuckin’ reality don’t get no fuckin’ realer than fuckin’ Nephilim.

Fucker.

125

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that Karado is actually a moderately intelligent chimp with access to the Internet, masquerading as a human.

Think about it: how would a chimp behave on the Internet? Probably the same as in real life: he’d lurk around, watching the people engaged in conversation, then when nobody’s looking, he’d burst into their midst, make a lot of noise, and fling poo everywhere.

126

But do chimps have delusions of grandeur?

Not as far as I know, but I’m not knowledgeable in that area. Unlike mustard , who is apparently an authority on fucking everything, including nephilim, necromancy, occurrences at Fatima, the devil, human - angel hybrids, hypothetical situations, speaking in the 3rd person…and…cutting through the fucking mustard . And this is just off the top of my head.

I think chimps are better than that and he’s an embarrassment to our genetic makeup.

127

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
But do chimps have delusions of grandeur?

Not as far as I know, but I’m not knowledgeable in that area. Unlike mustard , who is apparently an authority on fucking everything, including nephilim, necromancy, occurrences at Fatima, the devil, human - angel hybrids, hypothetical situations, speaking in the 3rd person…and…cutting through the fucking mustard . And this is just off the top of my head.

I think chimps are better than that and he’s an embarrassment to our genetic makeup.[/quote]

You’re right, of course.

I apologize to all chimps everywhere for the insult.

129
130

Is the human population over 8,000,000,000 with its expansion due to this thread? I didn’t realize PETA was right until now…how can we justify hunting or owning anyone? All these “other” species must be humans, along with “bonobos” and “chimps”(quotes around the former names of human varieties). What about “other” species which are only as different from “them” as “they” are from “us”?

131

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

  1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

  2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]

Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.

Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.

The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good and evil, on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author, as these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent creatures.
[/quote]

Moral laws don’t need to be extrapolated from the concept of God or Gods. Virtue theory is a single example, different versions of virtue theory have been around, quite a bit longer than Christ was for example.

Aristotle’s asked the question, what is it to be a good human being? You must be physically and mentally flourishing/ mentally virtuous? This is what they may have considered morality, back then…

An example here, perhaps you have a general who is brave, vs. a general who is fool hardy, vs. a general who is a coward. The virtuous general is simply the one inbetween fool hardy and a coward. And there you go, that’s how you can get morals.

Also, keep in mind for Aristotle, God was more a deist god in the form of an unmoved mover or first cause.

The Categorical imperative, on it’s own doesn’t need God attached either. There are many forms of secular morality.

132

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

  1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

  2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]

Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.

Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.

The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good and evil, on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author, as these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent creatures.
[/quote]

Moral laws don’t need to be extrapolated from the concept of God or Gods. Virtue theory is a single example, different versions of virtue theory have been around, quite a bit longer than Christ was for example.

Aristotle’s asked the question, what is it to be a good human being? You must be physically and mentally flourishing/ mentally virtuous? This is what they may have considered morality, back then…

An example here, perhaps you have a general who is brave, vs. a general who is fool hardy, vs. a general who is a coward. The virtuous general is simply the one inbetween fool hardy and a coward. And there you go, that’s how you can get morals.

Also, keep in mind for Aristotle, God was more a deist god in the form of an unmoved mover or first cause.

The Categorical imperative, on it’s own doesn’t need God attached either. There are many forms of secular morality. [/quote]

As I said, an atheist can have faith in the existence of rights. And, good and evil. But he ends up making room for faith. Let’s be real here for a moment. Good and evil, inherent rights, exist as a matter of faith. As things we insist exist, though we can’t measure them, observe them, demonstrate their actual existence, or make a mathematical proof for them. Further it provides an argument for an author.

A truly secular, skeptical, anit-faith type of atheist can offer nothing more than…well, basically, who can enforce what favorite color.

133

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Moral laws don’t need to be extrapolated from the concept of God or Gods. Virtue theory is a single example, different versions of virtue theory have been around, quite a bit longer than Christ was for example.

Aristotle’s asked the question, what is it to be a good human being? You must be physically and mentally flourishing/ mentally virtuous? This is what they may have considered morality, back then…

An example here, perhaps you have a general who is brave, vs. a general who is fool hardy, vs. a general who is a coward. The virtuous general is simply the one inbetween fool hardy and a coward. And there you go, that’s how you can get morals.

Also, keep in mind for Aristotle, God was more a deist god in the form of an unmoved mover or first cause.

The Categorical imperative, on it’s own doesn’t need God attached either. There are many forms of secular morality. [/quote]
Aristotle was a theist and thus he already had an ontological foundation for the basis of his morality and virtue ethics was his moral epistemology, knowing how to live the good life or what is moral.

134

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

  1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

  2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]

Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.

Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.

The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good and evil, on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author, as these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent creatures.
[/quote]

Moral laws don’t need to be extrapolated from the concept of God or Gods. Virtue theory is a single example, different versions of virtue theory have been around, quite a bit longer than Christ was for example.

Aristotle’s asked the question, what is it to be a good human being? You must be physically and mentally flourishing/ mentally virtuous? This is what they may have considered morality, back then…

An example here, perhaps you have a general who is brave, vs. a general who is fool hardy, vs. a general who is a coward. The virtuous general is simply the one inbetween fool hardy and a coward. And there you go, that’s how you can get morals.

Also, keep in mind for Aristotle, God was more a deist god in the form of an unmoved mover or first cause.

The Categorical imperative, on it’s own doesn’t need God attached either. There are many forms of secular morality. [/quote]

As I said, an atheist can have faith in the existence of rights. And, good and evil. But he ends up making room for faith. Let’s be real here for a moment. Good and evil, inherent rights, exist as a matter of faith. As things we insist exist, though we can’t measure them, observe them, demonstrate their actual existence, or make a mathematical proof for them. Further it provides an argument for an author.

A truly secular, skeptical, anit-faith type of atheist can offer nothing more than…well, basically, who can enforce what favorite color.

[/quote]

I mean, if you convince me that your life has no inherent value, that you’re not entitled to freedom according to some law out in the cosmos, well, I and everyone else are restrained only by our level of cowardice. By an assessment of the risks.

If you seek to convince me that by the mere fact of your human existence you have a right to life, to your property, to bear arms, I’m going to ask you to point the telescope in the direction of this cosmic law. Our show me under the microscope. And no, the Bill of Rights isn’t the proof. It’s ink on paper. It’s a nod, an observance, of faith in moral laws/rights existing since creation.

135

The skeptical, science-or-bust, atheist insists humanity is perfectly capable of constructing some kind of ‘moral’ code. Not that acts are inherently good or evil. Just that certain ones are more or less risky for us as individuals. And then hope our individual risk assessment matches up with their own. But do they really believe this is possible? We could live civilized lives, at a higher order, if the population at large really viewed itself with such cold, calculating, scientific scrutiny?

If there was a treatment that could wipe out ‘superstitious’/religious-like faith, would such an atheists really have the…faith…to deploy it? Remember, it would wipe out belief that at least some acts are inherently evil. And, some acts being inherently good. Further, that we have rights inherent to us. That we have some special value. That the woman about to be gang raped has some inherent value, and an inherent right not to be raped. All notions, not subject to scientific attempts to falsify, wiped out. Is he really confident that a cold reptilian-like risk assessment could replace this, without throwing human civilization into chaos?

136

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

  1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

  2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]

Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.

Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.

The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good and evil, on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author, as these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent creatures.
[/quote]

Moral laws don’t need to be extrapolated from the concept of God or Gods. Virtue theory is a single example, different versions of virtue theory have been around, quite a bit longer than Christ was for example.

Aristotle’s asked the question, what is it to be a good human being? You must be physically and mentally flourishing/ mentally virtuous? This is what they may have considered morality, back then…

An example here, perhaps you have a general who is brave, vs. a general who is fool hardy, vs. a general who is a coward. The virtuous general is simply the one inbetween fool hardy and a coward. And there you go, that’s how you can get morals.

Also, keep in mind for Aristotle, God was more a deist god in the form of an unmoved mover or first cause.

The Categorical imperative, on it’s own doesn’t need God attached either. There are many forms of secular morality. [/quote]

As I said, an atheist can have faith in the existence of rights. And, good and evil. But he ends up making room for faith. Let’s be real here for a moment. Good and evil, inherent rights, exist as a matter of faith. As things we insist exist, though we can’t measure them, observe them, demonstrate their actual existence, or make a mathematical proof for them. Further it provides an argument for an author.

A truly secular, skeptical, anit-faith type of atheist can offer nothing more than…well, basically, who can enforce what favorite color.

[/quote]

I mean, if you convince me that your life has no inherent value, that you’re not entitled to freedom according to some law out in the cosmos, well, I and everyone else are restrained only by our level of cowardice. By an assessment of the risks.

If you seek to convince me that by the mere fact of your human existence you have a right to life, to your property, to bear arms, I’m going to ask you to point the telescope in the direction of this cosmic law. Our show me under the microscope. And no, the Bill of Rights isn’t the proof. It’s ink on paper. It’s a nod, an observance, of faith in moral laws/rights existing since creation.
[/quote]

All those things aren’t necessary. We come, “good” with a sense of justice. There is already plenty of evidence, documentation and studies of infants and toddlers displaying some senses of what could only be described as good morality, or an inherent sense of justice.

In this sense, we get our morality from ourselves. Being a Philosophy Major, if I’m honest I have to consider the possibility that this is a reality, and that Morality is an evolutionary construct which developed and came about as a result of us being social animals who work together to take on large tasks, like taking down a Bison or constructing a dam. I mean it from the biological perspective, that we evolved this way, we evolved in part to have complex senses of justice which goes right along with us being very social, cooperative and complicated animals.

We don’t need a book to tell us to feel horrible or to feel elation, and most of the time, by default we feel the same emotions for the same reasons across the board as a species. It’s when people get feelings that don’t match the situation that usually gets our attention, and as a species. Why have we developed all these drugs to treat mental ailment? Do we really need to look to a bible or legal books to tell us when things are all jacked up?

The study of Ethics in particular can show us how we can structure/ order the senses and ideas of morality we already have and come up with, and to develop newer, better, more or less complicated concepts according to whatever problems we are currently experiencing.

I say again, religion isn’t needed for morality. We come equipped with it.

137

[quote]Sloth wrote:
All notions, not subject to scientific attempts to falsify, wiped out. Is he really confident that a cold reptilian-like risk assessment could replace this, without throwing human civilization into chaos?[/quote]

Yes.

It’s still in our rational interests to have state-sponsored protection of individual rights. You don’t need to be dissuaded by a man with a pointy stick; you can just as easily be dissuaded by an unfavorable risk/reward assessment.

138

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

My contention, however, is that by narrowing our focus, protecting the rights of unborn humans on the basis of their status as “persons”, while denying the same status to our closest living relatives on this planet, even when some of them demonstrate attributes that qualify them for “personhood” ahead of many members of our own species, then we actually weaken our own position. We come off looking as hypocritical as a man who would author a document proclaiming that “all men are created equal” while owning other humans whose personhood, and indeed their humanity, was widely denied by his peers. [/quote]

Are we having a completely secular argument?

If so, “person” is a fiction, in the way you seem to be exploring it. It seems to me a faith-based position.

As if “person” was some special thing with inherent value in a dumb, cold, universe.

There are two ways to go, as I see it.

  1. None have rights inherent to themselves. No right to life, property, or to bear arms. All thoughts and actions are just thoughts and actions. Moral and immoral, good and evil, have no place. We may not try to take your life and possessions out of fear of losing our own (or, we may). But, not because you have some inherent right to your life. Or, some inherent evil or wrongness in doing so.It’s just risk assessment. I tremble for a society which would say such things in public. I would be in total fear of a society that eventually comes to believe what it has been saying. A ‘grant’ of life, maybe? A permission? To be arbitrarily granted, amended, and even revoked. Certainly one could opt for such a position. But I don’t want to hear talk about “rights.” Or, good and evil. “Oh, it’s so terrible homosexual marriages aren’t recognized by the state. The inhumanity of it. The evil of the traditional marriage position!”

  2. Faith-based.[/quote]

So atheists have no reason to be pro life?[/quote]

Well, yes and no. There is no obligation for an atheist to be pro life, whatever stage that life might be in.

Borrowing the viewpoint of a skeptic, he has no reason to be pro-life (at any stage of a life). To be clear he might wish to continue to live himself, so not make moves against others capable of doing harm back to him. A convenient peace-keeping. Or, he might not. Neither position would be good or evil. No fancies of inherent right to life (at any life stage). Just cold hard risk-assessment. And, possibly the might on his side to enforce his view.

The other atheists would also have no faith in deities for whatever reason, obviously. Yet, maintain faith in other things they can’t observe, measure, and demonstrate. Rights inherent to the individual. Acts that are inherently evil or good. The last obviously requiring the existence of good evil. Lately this position seems to be unfashionable, since it allows the religious to stay at the big boy table. Can’t put inherent rights, good and evil, on a scale or under a microscope, after all. And it begs for an ongoing debate about the necessity of an intelligent author, as these moral laws are meant to govern the behavior of intelligent creatures.
[/quote]

Moral laws don’t need to be extrapolated from the concept of God or Gods. Virtue theory is a single example, different versions of virtue theory have been around, quite a bit longer than Christ was for example.

Aristotle’s asked the question, what is it to be a good human being? You must be physically and mentally flourishing/ mentally virtuous? This is what they may have considered morality, back then…

An example here, perhaps you have a general who is brave, vs. a general who is fool hardy, vs. a general who is a coward. The virtuous general is simply the one inbetween fool hardy and a coward. And there you go, that’s how you can get morals.

Also, keep in mind for Aristotle, God was more a deist god in the form of an unmoved mover or first cause.

The Categorical imperative, on it’s own doesn’t need God attached either. There are many forms of secular morality. [/quote]

As I said, an atheist can have faith in the existence of rights. And, good and evil. But he ends up making room for faith. Let’s be real here for a moment. Good and evil, inherent rights, exist as a matter of faith. As things we insist exist, though we can’t measure them, observe them, demonstrate their actual existence, or make a mathematical proof for them. Further it provides an argument for an author.

A truly secular, skeptical, anit-faith type of atheist can offer nothing more than…well, basically, who can enforce what favorite color.

[/quote]

I mean, if you convince me that your life has no inherent value, that you’re not entitled to freedom according to some law out in the cosmos, well, I and everyone else are restrained only by our level of cowardice. By an assessment of the risks.

If you seek to convince me that by the mere fact of your human existence you have a right to life, to your property, to bear arms, I’m going to ask you to point the telescope in the direction of this cosmic law. Our show me under the microscope. And no, the Bill of Rights isn’t the proof. It’s ink on paper. It’s a nod, an observance, of faith in moral laws/rights existing since creation.
[/quote]

All those things aren’t necessary. We come, “good” with a sense of justice. There is already plenty of evidence, documentation and studies of infants and toddlers displaying some senses of what could only be described as good morality, or an inherent sense of justice.

In this sense, we get our morality from ourselves. Being a Philosophy Major, if I’m honest I have to consider the possibility that this is a reality, and that Morality is an evolutionary construct which developed and came about as a result of us being social animals who work together to take on large tasks, like taking down a Bison or constructing a dam. I mean it from the biological perspective, that we evolved this way, we evolved in part to have complex senses of justice which goes right along with us being very social, cooperative and complicated animals.

We don’t need a book to tell us to feel horrible or to feel elation, and most of the time, by default we feel the same emotions for the same reasons across the board as a species. It’s when people get feelings that don’t match the situation that usually gets our attention, and as a species. Why have we developed all these drugs to treat mental ailment? Do we really need to look to a bible or legal books to tell us when things are all jacked up?

The study of Ethics in particular can show us how we can structure/ order the senses and ideas of morality we already have and come up with, and to develop newer, better, more or less complicated concepts according to whatever problems we are currently experiencing.

I say again, religion isn’t needed for morality. We come equipped with it. [/quote]

Sure, we naturally have a capacity for good. And evil. Or, more accurately, without bias, we have a capacity to take action. The inherent value of those actions, as good or evil, is the issue.

139

For instance.

nfants as young as nine months old prefer individuals who punish those who are not like them, and this seemingly innate mean streak grows stronger in the next five months of life, a study by researchers at Yale University has found.

Babies, like adults, prefer individuals who like the same things they do. A new study reports that they want individuals who share their tastes to be treated well by others, but want those whose tastes differ from their own to be treated badly. The study of 200 nine- and 14-month-old infants was published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

Psychologists have long known that people tend to like others who are like themselves. Social bonds form more easily among those who look the same, act the same, have the same interests, and are members of the same group. We deem people who are like ourselves to be more just, intelligent, and trustworthy, while we attribute negative qualities to those who are different from us.

But when do these attitudes arise?

In recent years, Yale?s Karen Wynn, professor of psychology and cognitive science, has shown that even before their first birthday, infants too prefer individuals who share their own tastes in food or clothes. Wynn?s research team introduced babies to two hand puppets that had expressed contrasting preferences (for example, one preferring green beans to graham crackers, the other preferring the crackers to the beans). Babies who themselves preferred the crackers were much more likely to reach for puppets that liked crackers.

Wynn and lead author, Kiley Hamlin, now of the University of British Columbia, wanted to know if infants? preference for similar individuals meant that they hold negative attitudes toward those who are unlike themselves. In the new study, the researchers introduced babies to a puppet with the same food preference as the baby and to a puppet with the opposite preference. They then introduced two new puppets: One was helpful and retrieved a dropped rubber ball. The other was mean and took the ball away.

As expected babies of both ages preferred the helper over the meanies when the puppet being assisted liked the same food they did. But the next finding surprised the researchers: When the puppet that dropped the ball did not share the babies? taste in food, the infants preferred the mean puppet to the helper. In other words: Babies prefer someone who is nice to an individual similar to themselves, but they also prefer someone who is mean to a dissimilar individual.

However, Wynn, said, the results do not necessarily show that babies are born with a mean streak.

?We were surprised ? and more than a little chagrined ? to find that babies actively prefer individuals who mistreat someone whose tastes differ from theirs,? Wynn said. ?But while our findings show that we may be built to dislike differences, we are also built to like similarities ? and humans all around the world are similar in a multitude of ways.?

It may be that the more similarities babies ? and adults ? recognize between themselves and others, the less they will want to see those others harmed, said Wynn. When no other information is given, babies appear to dislike someone who differs from them. Their attitude might change if they had more information, she said.

?We don?t want to be too quick to generalize. My husband hates cheese, and I love cheese, and we get along just fine,? Wynn said. ?The interesting question to me is what kinds of information allow us to transcend superficial differences and build on our commonalities.?

Additional authors on the study are Neha Mahajan, and Zoe Liberman. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

140

[quote]Severiano wrote:
I say again, religion isn’t needed for morality. We come equipped with it. [/quote]

Partially, there is some issues that require divine revelation. But the point though is that being morally just is not enough. A truly civilized society is filled with Holy persons, not just moral persons.