I find your characterization of "Yates" as A
"anomalous", a little odd, as it is she that is acting consistent with evolution, and you who are acting in opposition to it. Do we call the bear who kills his own cubs, in order to bring the female into breading, EVIL????? No! Why do we? Or rather, why do you, since I can be completely consistent in denouncing such behavior as evil.
Females don't kill their cubs so they can come into heat. Males kill cubs so that females come into heat so they can impregnate them with their own seed. A female killing her young is anomalous, unless they are defective or too many and she sacrifices them in favor of the rest of her young.
The only reason I brought up Andrea Yeats is to illustrate that horrendous things are done by believers as well as non-believers. There doesn't seem to be a compelling correlation between goodness and belief.
The very concept of justice and injustice assumes that an ultimate standard of morality, really does exist
Saying this over and over again doesn't prove it. It may be intuitively obvious to you, but it doesn't necessarily resonate with everyone. There are other explanations just as plausible.
The fact is that all societies have very similar notions of what constitutes right and wrong
Perhaps, now, they're not so different from one another. It is the age of globalism, after all. Among dispersed populations of primitive peoples, not likely, although we have no way of knowing.
The "golden rule" to use a religious phrase, is not simply pragmatic, it is "right".
I think the golden rule, a secular statement of virtue, makes a lot of sense.
Karen |
