The God Delusion

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Why does 'moral outrage' require grounds for right and wrong? Surely it only requires a 'sense' of right and wrong.

You're squirming again. Grounds; sense; same thing. Get with the program.[/b]

No they are most definitely not the same thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No they are most definitely not the same thing.

Yes. I have a sense that I am falling; I don't need to refer to Newton to know I'm going to hit the ground.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No they are most definitely not the same thing.

Yes they are. We're both using them to mean the "criterion" for differentiation between "right" and "wrong". For you this criterion is some vague "sense".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Please?

I should have further qualified it by saying that "no nett evolutionary advantage is accrued".

Originally posted by Halitose
I should have further qualified it by saying that "no nett evolutionary advantage is accrued".

I understand your question. I prefer to discuss concrete examples, so if you don't mind...

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes they are. We're both using them to mean the "criterion" for differentiation between "right" and "wrong". For you this criterion is some vague "sense".

It's not vague at all: it's experienced directly, without premeditation. It's instinctive.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's not vague at all: it's experienced directly, without premeditation. It's instinctive.

Hitler/Manson/Stalin's instinct disagreed with yours/twhiteheads. Do you have any logical grounds to prefer yours above theirs?

Originally posted by Halitose
Hitler/Manson/Stalin's instinct disagreed with yours/twhiteheads. Do you have any logical grounds to prefer yours above theirs?

Why do I need any? Their actions, to me, appear self-evidently wrong. This is borne out by their obvious lunacy.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I understand your question. I prefer to discuss concrete examples, so if you don't mind...

Hypothetically, you adopt an HIV-positive orphan from the local township. You raise/nurture the said child at great expense knowing it would probably die in 6-10 years.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why do I need any? Their actions, to me, appear self-evidently wrong. This is borne out by their obvious lunacy.

So essentially you are saying that morality is in the eye of the beholder, where no action is objectively preferable to another?

Originally posted by Halitose
Hypothetically, you adopt an HIV-positive orphan from the local township. You raise/nurture the said child at great expense knowing it would probably die in 6-10 years.

The skill set you develop (from empathy to dealing with grief) can be passed on to the community. Everybody benefits.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The skill set you develop (from empathy to dealing with grief) can be passed on to the community. Everybody benefits.

We're talking about "nett personal benefit"...

Edit: Another example. You jump into a burning building to rescue a total stranger with the distinct possibility that you'd die trying.

Originally posted by Halitose
So essentially you are saying that morality is in the eye of the beholder, where no action is objectively preferable to another?

No, it's in the instincts of every person, which tend to be fairly similar in most cases--unsurprisingly, since much of our moral behaviour is shared with animals.

Originally posted by Halitose
We're talking about "nett personal benefit"...

No, we're not, we're talking about net evolutionary benefit, unless you want to shift things around. Read what you posted. What has net personal gain got to do with anything?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, it's in the instincts of every person, which tend to be fairly similar in most cases--unsurprisingly, since much of our moral behaviour is shared with animals.

I've just given you examples where there were contrary "instincts". Are they decided by democratic vote?