EVOLUTION has NOTHING to do with morality. Evolution is not a human being and cannot be held liable or accountable as it cannot assess or evaluate.
"it is still morally wrong for a mentally incompetent person to rape, kill or rob another"
You just previously ADMITTED that "they are not morally wrong in an amoral "natural" system"" so how do you now presume to attach guilt to an individual who is no more able to exercise moral judgment than a cockroach. Certainly the rest of society has done nothing wrong if a cockroach does something hurtful, so the only question is whether or not the cockroach has done something wrong. If something is morally wrong then someone must have committed the wrong--i.e. acted immorally. Obviously that which cannot judge between right and wrong cannot be held to have committed a moral wrong. It is not sensible or fair to call a ant immoral for making a slave of an aphid; so why would it be fair to call someone with mental illness immoral who likewise acted without reason but mindlessly? Morality is about how we INTENTIONALLY treat one another. It is NOT about events, per se. If you slip off your roof and land on my baby we do not call you "immoral"--even though great harm has been done. We can say that one hurt another or did such and such, but we cannot pretend it was a moral failing. As I said before:
"They are not morally wrong in creatures that are incapable of evaluating right from wrong. And they are not morally wrong in people who are incompetent to know right from wrong."
If you wish to pretend that society or God is responsible for those actions (hurtful actions of animals or unknowing people), then by all means pretend that one or the other is morally accountable. But it is just babble.
"Might is right in nature is reality not a philosophy"
Might is right is NOT reality in Nature. IT does not EXIST in Nature. How do I get that through your cement skull?? Nature has no ethic about what is good or bad. Might is right is an ethic about HUMAN interaction. It has nothing to do with Nature. It originates in antiquity and is championed by Thrasymachus and Callicles in Plato. Later philosophers such as Hobbes and Spinoza and Rousseau considered its applicability as an ethic. Eventually, some Social Darwinists adopted the term as a social/political/racist ethic. We do not talk about ethics in Nature because nature does not have the rationality to determine moral judgment, but rather acts as it MUST through instinct and necessity. Nature does not make moral judgments so stop your childish nonsense. My advice to you is that it is better to be up to your ankles than over your ears. Suit yourself.
"Values, or more accurately, ethics are precisely the question you are begging."
That is totally non responsive. I explained to you how "Might is right" is NOT the logical choice for anyone who values other creatures. You had said it was the logical choice for atheists which is just plain stupid. The only people logically choosing such an ethic in their self interest might be those who had little to fear from others because of their overwhelming power. Atheists would have no logical reason to believe that such an ethic could benefit them or anyone else other than an Absolutist Tyrant. There is no reason to believe that atheists are universally more powerful than other human creatures; so your assertion is nonsensical and falls down flat.
"Because our moral rules are against selfishness"
No. They are all FOR selfishness. They are FOR preserving the selfish interests (life, safety, and property) of all of us. In more primitive times when "might makes right" was the general ethic expressed in tribalism, the selfishness was more evident. Especially when we look at the crude rules of primitive people, such as "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's," we find that it is about being selfish--in this case protection of property (wives) and slaves.
"They do because God's Law is written on their hearts."
So you come full circle! You yap and yap and yap about how nobody but a believing Christian has a basis for moral action. You yap that we have no way of knowing whether murder and rape are wrong. And you do all of this because you have taken the proposition that God exists and that morality is Absolute. And how do you "prove" that it is Absolute after scores of squirming posts and running down mouse holes? You simply DECLARE it so! "They do because God's Law is written on their hearts." That is your "rational explanation!"--LOL!
And at the same time you "prove" the existence of God! What a bonus, and how clever! NOT!
PS. So, if it "is written on our hearts", then I guess you can shove the big book and preach to the canaries! Someone should have told the missionaries that, eh! |
