I am simply posing the question that has confounded the great minds of our history. Well let me make it a few questions. First, what is morality? Is it doing the "right" thing and/or doing the "good" thing? From whom do we derive this definition? Can we have morality without God(s)? If God(s) does not exist then from where do non-theists derive their definition and application of morality?
What keeps one from killing thy neighbor? The common answer seems to be that they hold a sense of morality (e.g. the golden rule or some other philosophical prospective). But if they cannot derive this sense from something, then what makes it correct? I think many would agree that killing thy neighbor is not a logical response to modern issues. Why is this?
I know some very deep, broad questions but I would like to hear what others think of this issue. Many great minds have had their thoughts and opinions to these questions (from the pre-socratics to the minds of today), and now its your turn. I am looking for simple logical answers that are of topic.
You should keep your comments on a moral and respectful basis... or should you?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
...quote from one of my favorite sources:
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." ~ Thomas Jefferson
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist?"
- One may argue and most would agree that every human is capable of doing "good" acts. Whether they be in the name of God or not, they are still capable. I am not arguing this point. But there are things that can be done the right way but for the wrong reasons.
To answer Jefferson's this question,
Let me go through the two hypothetics, one being if god exists, the other being if god doesn't exist. Since neither of the two assumptions have to date been empirically proven (as most would agree)
If we assume god does exist, and an atheist does a "good" act, from where does this morality come from?
We could say that this morality came from god, because all humans were created by god, and all humans were created with the capability to do a "good" act. Therefore unbeknownst to the atheist their act did originate from god, even though that wasn't their intent. (Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons).
If we assume that god doesn't exist, and an atheist does a "good" act, from where does this morality come from?
Affirmations, reasonings, and other foundations seems to be Jefferson's and your answer. It is very possible that this is true. However, affirmations and reasoning may differ from one to the other. I could reason that since we are nothing more than animals (according to Darwinian theory) and it is natural for animals to kill, then it is natural for us to kill, therefore we should kill. What makes your reasons and affirmations more substantial than mine? In other words, on what basis can we mutually define morality?
If you take any issue to my reasoning, please state so
Okay. But just remember that you asked for this...
Well, you have in a nut-shell just summed up the essentally subjective nature of all "moral" opinions. If it is the reason behind the action that is important to you, then your moral compass (whatever it may be) is not an objective system.
Well, right from the outset, your reasoning falls prey to a false dichotomy (a logical fallacy). Even IF one accepts that a "god" exists, that would not mean, necessarily that "god" was the origin of anything. If there is such a thing as a "god," who is to say, even which of the world's presumptuous religons has properly described such a being (or beings). Perhaps none of the have the right of it. Thus, one cannot logically frame this question in terms of the two hypotheses you suggest.
This argument is also based upon a logical fallacy (in this case, begging the question). You can say that "morality came from god," but unless you have some objective evidence that would demonstrate the basic premise of this hypothesis (i.e. that "god exists") is actually true, then any conclusion you base on this assumption is by definition, unsound.
From a shallow perspective, this hypothesis would likewise seem to fall prey to the same logical fallacy I just described. However, the hypothesis actually subtly misrepresents the premise of atheistic philosophy. The basis of atheism is observation that there is not evidence that would lead one to assume that supernatural beings and forces (i.e. "gods") actually exist. The difference is subtle, but important. There is no logical burden necessary to support a lack of belief in an asserted position. The logical burden of proof lies with the positive assertion, i.e. the assertion that "god exists." The negative position is the logical default, until either argument or evidence satisfies that burden.
Nothing makes my affirmations more "substantial" than yours. That was the point that Jefferson was making. Since there is no evidence that "god" acutally exists, the only thing that supports the theist's claim concerning the nature of his or her own morality is exactly the same as the atheists, i.e. the theist asserts that his or her actions are moral, and then provides his or her reasons for beliving so. The atheist does the same when he asserts the morality of his own actions, and likewise defends those actions through reasoned argumentation.
It is also something of a misnomer, in my opinion, to frame the question of morality solely in terms or religious/not-religious. Many different religions have radically different tenets included in their moral systems, and many non-religious philosophies also delve into the realm of what is or is not "moral." The problem is the word "morality" is extrordinarily ambiguous. There are many different ideas on how to define "morality," and even the greatest minds of history have had trouble agreeing on what, exactly that term entails.
If you are really interested in a deep exploration of this topic, I would suggest that you read the Stanford Encyclopdia of Philosophy's entry on The Definition of Morality.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Ok here goes...
The two hypotheses would not be subject to False Dichotomy, because in essence there are no alternatives. Either God(s) exists or God(s) doesn't exist. This is separate from whether he is the highest order of morality.
Since God is defined as the creator and origin of all things. This is inherent in the definition because there are no peoples that define God as not having the highest moral authority. Whether it be one god or many gods, all theistic religions hold that God or Gods are the creators of everything. This notion of everything encompasses morality since being moral (however you may define it) is part of the universe that god created. In other words, if I am moral (according to my definition), and I can be moral, then this ability to be moral must have come from God. Why? Because God(s) is defined as the creator of all things no matter what religion you will encounter. (If you know of an example of a religion that holds something at the same level of god(s), please share it).
Yes the second is based on an argument and would be regarded as unsounded and not necessarily true or false. (Begging the question). Yes, the argument is unsound because God's existence has not been proven. That is why I made it as an assumption. If someone went and proved God's existence tomorrow, then the argument would hold. This goes back to my original post as I posed the question in a hypothetical manner. Jefferson's question relies on the same assumption. He assumes that a theist does a good act in God's name. Even if God exists that does not mean that all "good" acts are done so to please God.
Anyways, this is not meant to be a proof or disproof of God..
Let me extend another question(s). Why should I not kill others, if we agree that morality can not be concretely defined by people? My opinion of morality is no more or less correct than your opinion. What basis other than God can we give to morality? You may say that killing is immoral for a number of reasons, ultimately these reasons were thought up by humans? So the basis of your morality is from humans (i.e. Jefferson, yourself, etc.) Each view humans hold will not agree with every one's view of killing and its morality or amorality (since each one is distinct). If I think that killing is moral and you think the opposite, then why ought I not kill?
Yes I know kind of an anarchist point of view, let me state that I do not hold any of these stances as one would surmise, I am simply posing the questions.
Rephrasing your hypothesis to encompass the question of "God(s)" in a general sense helps a bit, but it still doesn't resolve the false dichotomy. You are assuming that if "god(s)" exist, that those "god(s)" are in fact responsible for defining the thing we humans refer to as "morality." In fact, there are four logical possibilities.
1) "god(s)" exist, and "god(s)" defined "morality."
2) "god(s)" exist, and humans defined "morality."
3) "god(s)" do not exist, and humans defined "morality."
4) "god(s)" do not exist, and humans did not define morality.
We could sub-divide these even futher, but these seem to represent the major possibilities relevant to our discussion. The real problem with your argument, is that the key premise...the "IF" upon which all of this is based...is "IF 'god(s)' exist." Your premise is ambiguous and undefined (in a logical sense). If you cannot establish for certain that "god(s)" do exist, then your conclusions are by definition unsound. Hypotheticals like this may make for an interesting discussion, but ultimately there are without meaning, unless you can provide some actual, objective evidence that would establish your premise as a tautology.
I also have to point out that the capitalized "God" is a monotheistic affectation almost uniquely associated with judaeo-christianity. Most either refer to their concepts of deities specifically through the use of a a proper name, or generally with the lower-cased term "god". Relying upon the capitalized psuedonym presents the implication that your arguments are being couched solely in reference to the Abrhamic "God."
Your definition in this case is arbitrary, and not supportable in terms of a generic discussion of "god(s).
Factually incorrect. Just off the top of my head, for example, the Asatru religion believes in the existence of a "god" named "Loki," who is not considered as "having the highest moral authority."
Factually incorrect. For example, many eastern religions maintain that the universe, including the first "god(s)" were hatched out of "great cosmic egg" that formed with a pre-existing chaos. The shell of the egg became the earth and the sky, and the "god(s)" live between them, just like humans (though perhaps higher or lower, depending on one's persepctive).
As I said above, your assertions are based on a false assumption about the many religions of the world. There are as many unique mythological cosmologies as there are religions that describe them. Many of them share similar elements, but many of them do not. The one thing that they ALL have in common, is that there is not one whit of actual, objective evidence that would convincingly designate these stories or their characters as real. You are also begging the question (again). The entire argument is curcular, and the conclusion that "morality must have come from god" is just a rewording of your premise, that "God(s) is defined as the creator of all things." This is a classic example of that logical fallacy.
Fair enough. But, one could just as easily hypothesize that "Bigfoot is the creator of all things" and that "Bigfoot is the origin of all morality." What makes the hypothesis that "god" is responsible for this more convincing, or even more worthy of consideration, than the equally unfounded supposition that "Bigfoot" did it? Unless you have some actual, objective evidence to support your hypothesis, then the answer is "none at all."
Unfortunately, that proof is required to give your premise meaning. Without it, we might as well be arguing about who is stronger, Superman or The Incredible Hulk.
.
The Stanford Encyclopedia article I linked for you would provide a much more in-depth answer, but I'll attempt a more simplistic response for you here. I know that I don't want to be killed. I also know that my close friends and family, and in fact most of the people who live around me likewise do not want to be killed. Thus, it doesn't take a great leap to suppose that I would increase my chances of survival by joining forces with those similarly inclined folks, and establishing a society that designates the killing of other humans as a moral taboo. Theists like the idea that morals must be handed down from "on high," but for the most part the basic moral directives that are essentially constant throughout all of mankind's diverse hisorical and modern cultures are largely based on the primitive needs of our tribal ancestors. So, the simplest answer is that you ought not to kill, because if you do the allies of your victim punish you as an example so as to discourage others from making the same choice.
Thanks to our bigger branks, human "morality" is much more complex, but we can see the same sort of behaviors in most herd animals. You can see a very primitive form of "morality" in the actions of the water buffalos in this famous video: The Battle at Kruger. Notice the way that the individuals of the herd overcome their fear and band together to protect the life of one of their own.
Honestly, I would rather discuss what you actually believe, rather than spinning our wheels with these "hypothetical" scenarios.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
1) "god(s)" exist, and "god(s)" defined "morality."
2) "god(s)" exist, and humans defined "morality."
3) "god(s)" do not exist, and humans defined "morality."
4) "god(s)" do not exist, and humans did not define morality.
OK, without getting too in depth with the semantics of morality, let me pose this question related to the above claims. Would you agree that humans are capable of being moral at birth (that morality is inherent) ?
Assuming that you do, then how could humans be capable of something that they themselves have not yet defined? It is not possible for the first person on earth to be capable of moral behavior if morality itself does not yet exist. (This would reject Claim #2 and Claim #3)
Assuming that you do not, then humans must have defined morality themselves. (This would affirm Claims #2 and #3)
OK your first thought may be that this is another Begging the question argument since their is no way to prove whether or not humans are morally capable at birth.
-This is true, so we cannot either reject or affirm either sets of claims.
-We can however accept that the two hypotheses are the two only hypotheses possible. (Either you agree or disagree to the question posed)
-So either way two of the four claims in your 1-4 series is incorrect
You can either accept (1 and 4) or (2 and 3). (AGAIN we do not know which because
we do not know the moral capability of humans at birth).
Since god cannot be proven or disproven (to date), the use of God only affirms the individuality of each claim.
(By using the parenthesis content after each answer, the original argument would by theory be removed from any false dichotomy since you can only agree or disagree and in both cases only two of your original four claims would be acceptable.)
Wow we are really thinking far into this issue, lol but that is good (excuse the play upon what is good)
We agree that there is no universal definition of God, which makes our commentary even more difficult to express. (Yet another semantical issue)
Yes your reference to Loki is correct, but there is also Thor (God of law among others),
Tyr (God of Justice, Oathbinder, Lawkeeper, Truest and Most Steadfast of Gods). Aesir (Norse God of Order).
It is much more ambiguous in polytheism because of the physical characteristics which they are given. Again this relies on one's definition of God and morality.
"But, one could just as easily hypothesize that "Bigfoot is the creator of all things" and that "Bigfoot is the origin of all morality." What makes the hypothesis that "god" is responsible for this more convincing, or even more worthy of consideration, than the equally unfounded supposition that "Bigfoot" did it? Unless you have some actual, objective evidence to support your hypothesis, then the answer is "none at all."
-Yes this is true, similar to Pastafarianism
"So, the simplest answer is that you ought not to kill, because if you do the allies of your victim punish you as an example so as to discourage others from making the same choice."
-Unfortunately, many killers do not care about the effects of their actions, they do not fear being punished. (Many believe that they are morally right which may be the most dangerous) Seems more like a tactical and sensical answer than one that answers morality. Should you "ought" not to do anything because of the fear of its possible consequences?
The hypothetical is necessary to make the issue visual. The issue being, if morality is not defined by god, whether god exists or not, then who defines morality and how should it be defined.
Many automatically assume that morality means doing what is good (in this case not killing another). My response is "who are they, and who is anyone" to universally define what is good and bad, moral and immoral.
I don't think it is possible to meaningfully answer that question without getting into the "semantics of morality." That's what I meant earlier when I noted the ambiguity that is associated with that term. This is one of the problems that arises in hypotheticals of this nature. Unless you have actual, objective evidence that would definitively establish which of the relevant premises are true, and which are false, it becomes impossible to make sound conclusions based on those premises.
I do in fact see this as just another example of begging the same questions.
I think that is a bit of an oversimplification. I would suggest that we can provide at least some evidence that would suggest that both humans (and individuals) and human societies (acting in aggregate) do in fact define their own concepts of "morality." Thus, options #3 and #4 provide us with the possibility of a sound conclusion (and remember, a "sound" conclusion doesn't mean that the suggested hypothesis is true, but only that whatever conclusion you reach is logically supportable). Options #1 and #2 however rely upon an premise for which there is no similar body of evidence, which would seem to render any conclusion based on that premise unsound (which again, doesn't mean that they're automatically false, but only that your reasons for concluding based on them do not follow a logical path).
I do not agree that "god cannot be proven or disproven." At the very least, it seems reasonable that if such a being existed, that being could make his or her presence known in an objective manner (which is why I am an atheist, and not an agnostic).
I don't think that it is a "semantic" issue at all. It is rather a basic question of whether or not there is any reason to hypothesize that a) "god(s) exists" and that therefore b) "god(s) created morality." We know for a fact that humans exist. And we know that within the reach of our actual, objective experiences that human societies over time have some radically different concepts about "morality." We also know that humans tend to mimic the same basic mores and norms as their parents, which in turn is reflected in the social constructions of the societies in which those families exist. All of that would tend to lend weight to the premise that humans do in fact "create" their own moralities. On the other hand, all of the "if god(s) exist" arguments are logically stillborn. Without at least some evidence that would establish the truth of their premise, there is no logical manner in which to advance the argument.
Indeed, and that is the problem with your argument. Since you cannot provide a objective definition for "god," then your argument is ultimately subjective.
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But, isn't that true regardless of the orign of "morality?" After all, most religions rely on at least some level on a system of rewards and punishments. In fact, in the monotheistic context of the Abrahamic religions, the concept of rewards and punishments is in fact a core element of the theology.
The evidence would seem to me to lead towards just this kind of "tactical" thought process a the motivation behind most systems of "morality." The human subconscious is quite powerful, and more than capable of controlling (or at least influencing) the conscious actions of humans. Freud called this the "super-ego." No "god" is required to explain that functionality. It's just the way that our brains work.
Well, since you can't actually produce any actual, objective evidence in support of this proposition, I would suggest that your hypothesis isn't really very "visual" at all.
Well, the easy answer is that none of us have the ability to "universally define what is good or bad," and frankly I think its a more than a little presumptuous to think that we could, even if we were to try. On a practical level, all systems of "morality" are normative to the societies in which they exist. All we as individuals can do is decide for ourselves whether to abide by those norms, or not, and then face whatever consequences follow when those societies react to our decisions.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"I would suggest that we can provide at least some evidence that would suggest that both humans (and individuals) and human societies (acting in aggregate) do in fact define their own concepts of "morality." Thus, options #3 and #4 provide us with the possibility of a sound conclusion (and remember, a "sound" conclusion doesn't mean that the suggested hypothesis is true, but only that whatever conclusion you reach is logically supportable)."
4) God(s) does not exist, humans did not define morality.
A society is but a collective group of humans. So if there is evidence to support that societies define "morality", and societies are in essence humans, we must reject option #4. Humans (as individuals and as an aggregate) would by subdivided from option #3 which would have no effect on the four options presented therefore still leaving four concrete options.
Rejecting or accepting either option has no bearing on whether they are subdivided or not, since both subdivisions agree with the option itself.
eg. 3) God(s) does not exist, humans define morality a) as individuals
b) as an aggregate
c) as both a) and b)
Once again rejecting or accepting option 3) remains the same and is not dependent on the three sub categories!!!
"Unless you have actual, objective evidence that would definitively establish which of the relevant premises are true, and which are false, it becomes impossible to make sound conclusions based on those premises."
Yes we can not reach a conclusion which I already stated,
"-This is true, so we cannot either reject or affirm either sets of claims. (a conclusion)
-We can however accept that the two hypotheses are the two only hypotheses possible. (Either you agree or disagree to the question posed)
This is similar to the statistical notion of a null and alternative (psy) hypothesis
One can state an accurate hypothesis without reaching a conclusion.
The purpose of this was to remove the original argument from the accused false dichotomy. (i.e. more than the stated possibilities)
-"So either way two of the four claims in your 1-4 series is incorrect
You can either accept (1 and 4) or (2 and 3). (AGAIN we do not know which because
we do not know the moral capability of humans at birth)." (reaching a conclusion)
Once again the purpose of this was not to reach a conclusion about morality (which can not be done because of begging the question), the purpose was to remove any notion of false dichotomy from the original argument because we only have two acceptance parameters, (1 & 4) or (2 & 3).
Similar to the null and alternative hypothesis idea.
"I don't think that it is a "semantic" issue at all. It is rather a basic question of whether or not there is any reason to hypothesize that a) "god(s) exists" and that therefore b) "god(s) created morality. ." We know for a fact that humans exist. And we know that within the reach of our actual, objective experiences that human societies over time have some radically different concepts about "morality." We also know that humans tend to mimic the same basic mores and norms as their parents, which in turn is reflected in the social constructions of the societies in which those families exist. All of that would tend to lend weight to the premise that humans do in fact "create" their own moralities."
This notion of humans creating their own morality is extremely problematic as I continue to strenuously state. Here is why.
"Well, the easy answer is that none of us have the ability to "universally define what is good or bad," and frankly I think its a more than a little presumptuous to think that we could, even if we were to try. On a practical level, all systems of "morality" are normative to the societies in which they exist. All we as individuals can do is decide for ourselves whether to abide by those norms, or not, and then face whatever consequences follow when those societies react to our decisions."
So 'no one has the ability to universally define what is good or bad'.
- Yes, also, no one should try to, even though they believe it is to their ability
"Frankly I think its a more than a little presumptuous to think that we could, even if we were to try.
- Judges and Politicians do it every day. Do you still vote for them?
"On a practical level, all systems of "morality" are normative to the societies in which they exist.
- For the most part yes
All we as individuals can do is decide for ourselves whether to abide by those norms, or not, and then face whatever consequences follow when those societies react to our decisions."
- Here is where I have a problem. This is just a follow the sheep concept and being an atheist yourself, you should be very apt to not do so. This is a very dangerous concept which has both secular and ecclesiastical connotations. Abiding by the norms of society has brought extreme black eyes to the world and especially to the United States. How long was slavery the norm?, How long was racism the norm?,
and how long was killing the norm? And yes lets be fair to those who think killing is moral (due to its ambiguity) How long was freedom the norm, How long was peace the norm, and How long was equality the norm???
All of these acts and concepts have been the norm somewhere, sometime.
They have all been viewed in a moral sense by at least one person and many more. So my question is, how do we define morality? It seems to me that If their is no concrete belief in a God(s), then there is no concrete definition of morality. A norm is no way to define our morality. Society (a collective group of humans) has no right to tell one how to live his or her life. Would you conform if people told you to believe in what they believed in simply because it is what your society accepted or governed? No, and I am sure this is true if this subject was God. A society has no right governing what is moral or amoral, because their moral authority is equal to yours. Wasn't it your pal Thomas Jefferson who wrote all men are created equal?
Each person having their own definition is entirely problematic because not one person's moral compass will be the same. That is why the morality of killing was brought up.
It doesn't make sense for the betterment of society. That's a pretty objective thing to measure. Anyone could come up with that on their own, without any religious training. Stealing from my neighbor makes him/her angry. This increases the likelihood of a fight, which could lead to bodily harm to myself or to my neighbor. If we are nice to each other and get along, we might actually band together and look out for one another.
Atheists aren't Neanderthals. They just don't believe in god. They do believe in what makes good, rational sense, and a lawless,amoral society does not make any sense at all.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"Atheists aren't Neanderthals. They just don't believe in god. They do believe in what makes good, rational sense, and a lawless,amoral society does not make any sense at all."
- I understand that atheists are not Neanderthals. That is absurd. I still though do not have an answer to my question. What defines a moral or amoral society? I am not satisfied with the answer that it does not make any sense. Just like an atheist would not be satisfied that god exists because it makes perfect sense. In no way am I advocating murder, theft, etc. but on what grounds does an atheist hold them amoral?
"It doesn't make sense for the betterment of society."
- Animals as a kingdom imbettered themselves by killing one another, they are here today. As was said in my last post, according to Darwinian theory, we are nothing but animals. So why is it amoral for us to kill each other, but not for other animals to do so?
Almost as absurd as insinuating that atheists cannot be moral without god.
Since you didn't like my answer, I refer you to the other thousands of answers you may find to this very same question if you search the site for atheism and morality. I don't have the energy or desire to hash out the same arguments that are already out there. Blackout and Darwin's Beagle have tackled this one nicely in the past.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Never did I say or insinuate that atheists cannot be moral without god. I am simply questioning where atheists draw their morality from and I still do not have a definitive answer.
Blackout implied that this morality comes from other humans, and this morality concept is different from one human to the other. So my question to that is, "What if I think killing people is moral and allowing them to live is immoral? (Which genocide supporters may agree with) if that is my theory on morality, then what makes others that are contradictory more correct or more believable.
So why is it amoral for us to kill each other, but not for other animals to do so?
Our emotion of compassion is one reason!
We are still very young as a species and our overall education is crap, which leads many amongst us to behave like morons.
This moronic behavior is mainly a sexuality issue which is not controlled inside one’s thinking.
Not grasping the difference between “yours and mine” is a serious problem these days, lol. It’s no really about good and wrong, but more an issue about the lack of common sense which pushes certain boundaries into area’s that become traumatizing for the ones that are exposed to the effects of it.
What is not controlled brings conflicts to arise.
Way down the ladder of it all, dead is to be found as a result of educational crap and its effect upon morons.
The best education is the one which makes one to understand (see it) before causing conflict upon the ones that do understand, lol.
Our species does not evolve together on the same level of experience and surely not an a commonly shared level of consciousness!
http://www.loveearth.com/uk/film/
Are anger, revenge also not emotions that most humans have?
I think many would argue that animals do also have compassion for one another.
Anger has many faces, revenge is one negative spiral which keeps the whole world busy and in a state of fear, any emotional reflection which is driven by revenge creates a bigger fire to extinguish!
Yes, mostly mammals, they need to care, to be taken care of!
?
This still does not answer my question. What basis other than God can we give to morality? You may say that killing is immoral for a number of reasons, ultimately these reasons were thought up by humans. So what makes your opinion more correct than others who believe killing is actually moral?
The purpose of life is not to be killed because one you might meet down the street doesn’t like your presence around!
Same applies with animals, you can kick a dog until this one will eventually bite you!
Morals are commonly accepted and set upon certain standards which allow societies to create a balance of certain reason in order to create an atmosphere of living which can be seen or experienced without fear or trauma to bring spoil the beauty of our living experience, it is very obvious when watching the news or read any history book to figure out people all over this planet seem to have their own views upon morals and what they might represent.
This struggle we see on God TV has always been around and is part of our social (global) evolution, morality is nothing more than a concept which is commonly approved by a majority within a same social environment.
This struggle is the oppression and pressure certain religious structures are pushing down upon people who do not wish to submit to morals dictated by so called higher authority.
To mould or put morality at best use for the ones that can gain profit out of this concept, is something which has created the face of the world the way many see and live it today.
To believe killing another “you” is moral, well, that’s nothing more than a thought which lacks reason!
Many seem to behave like god’s these days, when moral meets moral, a new moral comes to life!
Anyhow, It is easy to see what many believe, that’s why I brought up the moron part in my previous comment.
Proper education is the key, it keeps talent to deal with morons to arise when needed!
Good luck on your search for an answer,
http://www.loveearth.com/uk/film/
"To believe killing another “you” is moral, well, that’s nothing more than a thought which lacks reason!"
Why, to whom says killing is immoral? Maybe that is the consensus with the majority of humans, but what authority are they. Why does it lack reason? Because society views it as immoral? Should their views dictate the way others are to think?
and allowing them to live is immoral?
One walking around with such a thought, means one caries a broken heart!
A heart which can heal if it opens up, other than that one becomes a mirror which is set to inflict pain, because of the lack of a heart and reason!
Genocide supporters are morons which became genocide supporters because of morons!
Just because their moral compass is the opposite of yours does not make them morons. What makes your moral compass more correct than theirs? Why can't killing be accepted if that is part of their moral compass?
In other words, most people have different moral compasses in general, some slightly different others totally different. If we have no knowledge of what is correct, then which moral compasses should be accepted and which should be rejected?
Killing may seem to be immoral to you but that is just your opinion and your definition of morality. There is no empirical evidence that makes killing immoral, so why shouldn't we accept it, beyond your trivial analogies of broken hearts?