Is “right” or “wrong” fixed?

I can't say that either. All I can say is that the ethical ideals I try to adhere to say that I should. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to bring the perpetrator to justice. Justice is also an important value.

I think you're probably right that we share empathy and reciprocal altruism with non-humans, and that these are useful as building blocks in for systems of morality. Trouble is, both mechanisms have a limited natural range. Reciprocal altruism applies to those who are likely to return a favor, and empathy extends to those we perceive to be similar enough to us that we can relate to their experiences. Prehistorically, this meant fellow kinsmen and tribesmen. When the net of social interactions expanded by commerce and conquest to include lots of strangers, humans had to rely on culture to expand the ethical net as well. That's where the great religious teachers, particularly those of the Axial Age (8th to 3rd centuries B.C.) made their important contributions. But these achievements rest on a shaky foundation, with greed and tribalism always churning beneath the surface. Racists have difficulty accepting the fact that people of other races are really enough like themselves to care about.

If socio-biologist E. O. Wilson is correct, sometime in the course of human evolution, our brains became modularized into a component pursuing self-interest and a component responding to society's interests. The tension is always there. Psychologist Steven Pinker, who accepts this view, reports that the findings of modern neuroscience correspond most closely to the Freudian and Judeo-Christian concepts of modularized selves, with id and superego often pulling the ego in different directions. The superego tends largely to be a social and cultural construct that we call morality.

And although there are universals, there are also areas of disagreement that are reinforced by religious teachings. Religions agree that life is important, but differ on when that begins and ends, and whether or not non-humans are included. I must admit I have a hard time thinking of a blastocyst in a Petri dish as a human life and empathizing with it, although I concede that ordinarily said blastocyst, if it survives, will become recognizeably human early on. Given a choice between saving the blastocyst and a fully developed human, I wouldn't give the blastocyst any consideration at all. To me, a human has feelings and thoughts, and that requires a functioning brain and nervous system. Obviously, Catholic and Evangelical theologians disagree.

My problem with Sam Harris's formulation is that it seems like warmed-over utilitarianism--the greatest happiness for the greatest number--which is fine. But I was expecting some new advance based on modern MRI technology. I agree that our moral sense is based on empirically grounded conditions on what is conductive to human flourishing. But the notion that "science can tell us which values lead to human flourishing" seems pretty naive. Deternining well-being is always a judgment call. Do we go with Abbie Hoffman's hedonism ("If it feels good, do it!) or take a more qualitative view of happiness, lke J.S. Mill? Harris can't really bridge the gap between "is" and "ought" by trying to make oughts into is's.

 

Yeah, I would not be able to kill anyone ....but I sure would be seething with a hatred and anger that could kill me, I suppose...is one way to look at it....so I have no idea anymore.

 

In respect to those who are pro-life that hold to many other traditional values, particularly those in line with Christianity and what not, I think they place human life as higher in the order of nature than other animals, so I don't think they believe their views are incongruent. I can certainly understand how you arrive at your views though.

 

I know. I don't put my life above other creatures.....that way, thinking my life is more valuable than theirs......I know that.....

 

But is it immoral to think otherwise? Like in the case of a mosquito (classic example)

 

After the work day's done I sure will. Too busy right now. Also I don't talk about things I don't know about so there's no ass talk here

 

Morality is a thought process....and i don't sit there and decide...should I or shouldn't I?...It is a way of being and feeling that comes too naturally to me to be anyway else. there is a difference.....

Like I have said a million times...as a three year old child screaming and crying for my grand parents to throw back a fish I saw them caught, until they did..morality had nothing to do with it.

 

That's an intriguing example as well by the way!
Here its generally considered immoral to catch a fish for sport and then throw it back in the water. Not throwing it back and consume it later is the morally valid approach for catching fish

 

A more recent incident closer to home is Trump's policy (now rescidned) of mass separation of children from their parents, which to me is shockingly immoral and indefensible, because of the damage we should know it will inflict on the kids. Yet we had a thread of lame excuses on this forum: past administrations did it (not true!), they shouldn't have brought the kids (not relevant), maybe they weren't the real parents (where is Maury Povich when you really need him?), etc. So it goes. The human capacity for rationalization is endless.

 

I don't think people see it as a moral right; they recognize that it is a legal right. And to abolish that right via the swipe of a pen from an overreaching leader rather than through the democratic process is seen as problematic.

 

That’s true ^^ but a lot of people don’t make that distinction. I think there are relatively a good number of people on either side who see abortion as moral/immoral. But I don’t want to get hung up on abortion as a topic for the thread, it was just an example I thought of where there seem to be anyway, majorities on either side.

So who is right and wrong? Both are right and wrong? That’s more of the meaning behind the thread...how can two opposing sides be right and wrong but only one wins in terms of law?

 

And that's the statement right there. If we can convince ourselves that we're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons--and that appears easier to do than I would have said when I was young and naive--we're capable of just about any atrocity.

 

Do you know if there is something like a distinction between group interest and society interest in their views? If society interest is merely an extension of group interest, even with incorporating those views, again we're probably talking about a modularization phenomena that occurred before homo speciation.

 

The rule of law is illusion , rather an artificial intelligence , a representation . You are the real intelligence .
You and crows , too .

 

He's talkin' out his ass because he made all those claims about all religions.

You singled it down to only major world religions, which I cannot respond to without knowing your determination of what constitutes the major world religions.

 

Wilson thinks that modularization is pre-homo sapiens, probably with homo habilis.

Yes, I think to make those claims about all religions is pushing it. Major world religions is admittedly vague, but I think a reasonable consensus would include the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), as well as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. We could throw in Confucianism, Jainism, Bah'ai, Sikhiism and Zoroastrianism for good measure. These were religions that were affected by the Axial Age, Hinduism adding the Upanishads during that phase. I doubt that Moses' generalizations would apply to Shinto, Ifa, and Native American religions, but I also doubt that those could be regarded as major in terms of numbers of adherents and global reach. I'm also skeptical that all of the major religions share all of the commonalities Moses claims for them, but most of them share some of them. For example, the Golden Rule, which is the important one, as far as I'm concerned. Some would argue that for most of them it's the "silver rule"--a more negative form:"Do not do unto others what you do not want them to do unto you." I'd say same difference. Moses is sketchy about backing up his claims systematically with scholarly documentation. However, I provided three other sources making similar claims, and as far as I'm concerned, the important point is that much of humanity can agree on some basic moral principles which seem to contribute to human survival.

 

\


So thinking about this....Christians just think they are entitled then.

 

Yeah, you are absoutely right. This issue should not be in the hands of the government.....

 

And to that I'll raise a glass & say " Close enough to my point to make my rendition unnecessary." Good conversatin' with you sir.

 

Thanks. The feeling is mutual.