Humanity has no moral nature

Theoretically religions do instill morals, however the morals when the religion was written, were different than the morals of today.
Morals are a product of the society.

Also in religions of today, what is good for one, may be bad in another.

 

That's nauseating.

 

Our social nature informs our moral nature. For example murder is bad according to our social nature because the expectation of group safety is paramount to a stable society. This translates into a deep emotional revulsion for the act of murder and angry recriminations and dire consequences for perpetrators.

 

So how exactly do we get from there to the wrongness of slitting a child's throat just to watch it bleed to death?

Then bearing in mind that at first glance every cause may also be an effect, you will surely have no problem proving said causes are not the effects of other causes - so get the hell on with it already.

No, I would not call it either of those. I'd call it the sort of nonsense that can be expected from people who haven't got a clue about the nature of morality.

Well how very interesting. It's your position, then, that the "morality" that you personally subscribe to cannot be legitimately questioned. Have I got that about right?

Which might be interesting if history did not make it plain that mass murder is not the least bit destabilizing if it's managed adroitly.

 

A I already connected those dots: empathy. Which is also just a hard wired notion. Except for those for whom it is not, who are clinically sociopathic.

I never stated or implied such a thing. If you plan to take my comments somewhere they never went, be courteous enough to connect the dots. I invite you to question my morality. I question my own morality. Such a process of refining g morality is infinitely better than it being dictated, without questioning allowed, by a bronze age book written by ignorant people.

But that is product of reason, perspective, and scholarship, not an innate tendency or instinct. We are talking about what is hardwired into us, and that which formed via evolutionary processes.. We also know that diseases are caused by pathogens. Was this knowledge hardwired into us? No. So your comparison is not appropriate.

 

Humanity, apart from those with certain mental disorders, has a pro-social nature that is concerned about the wellbeing of others. It appears to be related to our mirror neurons and is part of our natural different, just like walking. On its face, most of us would call that a "moral" impulse. Arguments could be made that it should be called something else, but it is all semantics after that.

 

Doesn't cut it, because all empathy tells you is you wouldn't want it done to you. It doesn't tell you why you shouldn't do it to others.

Oh, but you did. You're not aware if it, of course, but clearly you're not aware of a great many things.

Why would you question objective morality?

Especially for those who find it convenient to adjust their "morality" according to perceived advantage.

And that's relevant to anything I said, how, exactly?

You didn't understand a word I said.

 

Okay, but we also have the impulse to rape, to murder, to steal....would that also be "moral" impulse?

 

False. It also let's us inderstand the suffering of others, via sympathy. So no, 100% incorrect.

I am not going to address your nitpicking. At this point, I think it is fair that you propose your own origins/explanation. You refuse to admit that all of our behaviors rise simply from the physical processes in our brains, themselves the product of evolution.

Now, let's hear your alternative explanation.

 

None of those are "has a pro-social nature that is concerned about the wellbeing of others"

 

That doesn't mean they can't be related to morality, or theater they have a different origin. Are these moral impulses? If we are even to use that word, then yes, they are.

 

"Moral" as in they are related to the topic of morality by virtue of being immoral, yes. "Moral" as in they are moral behavior, no, of course not. They are "related to morality" in the way that all immoral things are related to morality . . . in that they run counter to it.

 

Which is decided by us through a subjective process. Even the right to life.

 

A subjective process that we largely agree upon and develop naturally. Hence the "nature."

 

Thanks for the mindless repetition.

I suppose that's prudent, seeing it's obviously beginning to dawn on you that if you stand your intellectual ground for a second, I'll deck you.

What I'm missing is a reason to give a damn.

Any such admission would be not just a lie, but an act of personal devolution.

Why would I vouchsafe you the effort, given your demonstrated proclivity for weaselly evasion?

 

The Bible doesn't teach morality. It teaches obedience and loyalty.