No that's not just me. It applies to everyone. Those basic moral instincts you spoke of exist in all of us. (Well, at least the vast majority. Some of them seem broken in some people.)
But under atheistic subjective morality it doesn't matter. They believe that there is no innate morals because that would defeat the entire idea of subjective morality.
The researchers who found those moral instincts in young children didn't experiment on me, so you can't place their results only on me.
Ok and this is the subjectivists position. That any fixed idea of morality cannot be placed on everyone because morality is subjective or relative to culture. The US cannot tell some tribe in Africa that making their kids work and hunt is child labor and immoral.
As they would be for anyone. We all acquire the preferences in our moral systems over time, some by instruction, some by obervation, some in other fashions. Those preferences then weave into a full moral system with our moral instincts. If you know someone's personal moral priorities (collective good, personal freedom, sexual fidelity, etc.) an objective analysis of various moral scenarios can be done.
Isn't that just another way of saying there is no objectively innate morals like fairness or justice because these can vary by culture to the point that what one culture sees as justice and fairness the other sees as immoral.
If we all aquire the preferences for our morals over time through encultration then this implies a culture can change the whole idea of true justice and fairness to suit their cultural beliefs. Chairman Moa believes communism is fair and just. Kicking out all the illegal immigrants is fair and just to the Right but immoral to the Left ect.
What? I can make the same claim as anyone else who uses their base moral instincts. And, the best thing about morality is that everyone gets to declare theirs to be superior.
Yes but under subjective and relative morality people and cultures get to declare their morals which contradict your morals and they are just as valid and cannot be denied as immoral. Thats because under subjective/relative morality there is no objective basis outside humans.
In other words under this idea of morality we have to accept that two contradictory moral positions are ok at the same time and no one can say one is superior to the other.
Therefore citing innate morals is irrelevant because there are none. Innate morals would prove objective morality and under a subjective/relative system there are no objectives. Otherwise you can use them to say that some moral systems are against nature and inferior.
Boy you really got that wrong. Fully inverted. evolution *IS* and unguided process with a lack of intentional purpose.
This sounds a little ambigious. What do you mean by " Fully inverted. evolution". It sounds like you singling out a specific part from the overall process of evolution that can account for adaptive and heritable evolution.
I stand by the claim that evolution is also teleological. A simple factor is that creatures and especially humans can control their environment making benefical changes that direct evolution even to the point of controling what natural selection will end up using.
Extended *phenotypes* are the things animals do to their environment based on instincts (bird nests, beaver dams, ant hills, etc.) and behavior. Other behaviors can also be instinctive. If these are inherited behaviors how are then not ultimately explainable by the same processes of evolution that create body structures and biochemistry
Because they were chosen by the creature. They made specific choices to do certain things that were different to the status quo. Living things are adaptable by nature. There is a large desgree of plasticity in phenotypes that is not genetic at least to begin with which allows creatures to adapt without the need for random mutations of blind NS.
But creatures can also change environments themselves rather than being changed to fit environments. Then they pass down that changed environment and so long as they do it will eventually be cemented genetically. The important point is at first it is not genetic but a chosen behaviour.
Whether to eat healthily or not is a chosen behaviour that will have benefits or no benefit for adaptations and survivability. The unhealthy group die out and the healthy eating group (or benefical changes) will survive. Then later this will be cemented genetically ie less disease prone or more disease prone ect.
Then why bring it up? If abiogenesis is impossible without intervention (and I see no reason to think that) that doesn't mean evolution requires intervention.
Evidence shows that most of the genetic programming of the basic body plans goes way back. Who knows it may have been programmed into the first life. Abiogenesis highlights the leaps evolution makes along the way that cannot be explained by a programmed view of life.
We could take it all the way back to the beginning and how something came from nothing. The point is such creation or as Dawkins says such appearence of design doesn't come from Neo Darwinism and more and more cracks are appearing as a result.
I'm not sure how it could be anything else. If there is an inherited instinct for morality (as there is an inherited instinct for infants to suckle) then where else would it be recorded than in proteins and DNA, just like any other instinct.
You can't equate morality which is by nature a abstract and transcendent idea with the instinct to suckle. Babies are born with physical indicators of mothers milk and smells all biological based that causes an infant to suckle.
You cannot reduce morality down to smells, genes or neurons. No one is creating the god of suckle lol. If they did we think they have a mental problem. Maybe they lacked a mothers bonding lol.
My dislike for green peas is a perfectly valid source for finding it moral to extinguish them from existence... Bwhaahahaha.
No as peas are innocent lol. Its like saying my dislike for kids is perfectly valid to extinguish them from existence.
I live in a group and so do you. The sustainment of my group is good enough "metaphysical" reason as any you can give.
Going back to the vikings. Is the sustainment of their group by raping and pillaging others just as good a reason. It has to be under a relative morality. Just like the later Kings of England thought it moral to subjugate the people.
