/lit/ - Literature

>>10638070
that's because going from a standpoint that morality is objective is the only way you will reach some actual conclusions and solutions

subjective morality guided philosophy are fun memes

You're wrong. The reason you have that impression is that you spend too much time on /llt/. Lots of people believe morality is subjective, much more than you think.

But, with people who believe in God, objective morality is a sort of hope, so you're going to find a lot of moral objectivists on /lit/.

Unfortunately the stupid retard Sam Harris probably browses or phoneposts because I see some stupid shit about biological moral objectivism from time to time. Don't pay attention to that shit. Okay, anon? Okay.

>>10638088
Most philosophers are moral realist.

Most philosophers are disgusting moralizers.
>>10638078
Not a good reason. kys

Lol

Anything subjective may be defined into a objective statement.

>>10638070
An argument could be that humans are all the same and we want the same things.

>>10638070
Would be cool if the people were in the loop.

>>10638070
biology is objective ergo morality is objective

>most philosophers

If you are thinking about the quantity and not the reasoning you are already beyond saving, OP.

It doesn't matter how many say views, it's what the view is that matters, and philosophers have argued for innumerous morality systems.

>>10638223
>It doesn't matter how many say views, it's what the view is that matters
That would be ideal. But whether you are inclined to believe a view is "correct" will be influenced by the interactions you have had with other people. There comes a point in any argument where you just stop and say "yeah, that makes sense" and move on. The only reason you say "yeah, that makes sense" at that point is because other people you've interacted with tend to agree. You use subtle and unsubtle social cues to filter out the "incorrect" axioms from the "correct" axioms. Point being, quantity is not an unreasonable measure what's "correct," if we must agree that *something* has to be correct.

>>10638208
No, it couldn't.
>>10638217
Biology isn't objective.
>>10638223
>reasoning
Fuck off to plebbit

>>10638070
Because you're kinda illiterate.

Your premises are stupid. Most philosophers don't believe that. Most philosophers believe that morality theoretically could or should be objective. Incredibly-few believe that human ethics are. Also you're demonstrating an inability to separate ethics and morality, by posing the question. And that's also annoying.

>>10638342
>Biology isn't objective.
>this is what non-scientists actually believe.
I don't know why I stumbled into /lit/. Every day I despair for humanity. I'm going back to /sci/.

>>10638217
>>10638342
ABDUCTION

>>10638358
>you're demonstrating an inability to separate ethics and morality
Only insofar as I don't know the definitions you prefer for these words. I'm sure I'm capable of differentiating them conceptually.

>>10638342
>Biology isn't objective.
retard

>>10638365
It's genuinely not. There are two big problems:
1. That random chance has a huge influence, and the common understanding of "objective" boils down to "following rules outside those within human invention"
and
2. The belief that categories are meaningful outside the arbitrary rules imposed on them by human beings

Biology is sorta-objective.. But not in any way that we commonly mean, when we call something "objective." Species exist as a result of complex, historical instances. It's not deterministic. It's also not random. We genuinely don't have a good word for it. Also? The idea of things like "organs" and "species" is kinda not congruent with the reality that exists around us. These are artificial distinctions that don't exist. Go through the genealogical history of any species. You can't pick the "this animal is species A, and his son is species B." It's not that simple. The borders are very fuzzy. But we get the benefit of a very narrow perspective, so we don't have to pick which father/son combo separated the two, by species.

>>10638070
Only those who believe in God can reasonably believe morality is objective.

>>10638379
Sorry: wasn't trying to be the "holy than thou 'cuz I know something you don't but I won't tell you what" guy.

Morality is "how do we answer a question?" Ethics is "how do we build a framework from which to answer questions?" Either one can be objective. But morality is super-specific in its objectivity. "How should we react when I could push button A to save a baby who is innocent and button B to kill all murderers, if I have to push one of those buttons?" Approach is morally, and you get exactly that answer to exactly that question. And that's kinda easy. Approach it ethically and you have to define how to ever act in all situations possible, to justify why the right answer in this situation is the good one.

>>10638408
Why?

>>10638441
Because otherwise you ultimately rely on brute-fact claims, and annoying-ass nominalists believe that brute-facts are insufficient. Because they're brutally dumb and annoying.

>>10638342
someone should throw you in a pit with Black Mambas we will see how subjective your need for antivenom is

>>10638454
Well, does he wanna live or die? Kinda depends on the answer. Subjective-as-fuck. Your mind? Blown.

?

>>10638208
>humans are all the same
>we want the same things
psh

>>10638465
>kill five niggers or kill a woman
This is tough

>>10638088
You're wrong. The reason you have that impression is that you spend too much time on /lit/. Lots of people believe morality is objective, much more than you think.

But, with people who don't believe in God, subjective morality is a sort of hope, so you're going to find a lot of moral subjectivists on /lit/.

Unfortunately the stupid retard Richard Joyce probably browses or phoneposts so I see some stupud shit about moral nihilism from time to time. Don't pay attention to that shit. Okay, anon? Okay.

>>10638465
>Three men vs one woman
real tough.

>>10638469
It's not, actually. It just lacks context.

Unless the woman is the only woman in the world, or harming her does some great harm to the species that you are unaware of? You choose to kill fewer people through action than inaction. But only if the lever is in front of you and you are fully-aware of the scenario. Otherwise, you choose to kill more people through inaction by intentional ignorance than fewer people through action.

It isn't actually a hard problem. None of us, put in the situation, would have difficulty with it. The problem is that the drawing lacks a context, so it's really a psychological question, because it asks you to interpret the picture and develop your own context. How close was I to the lever? Did I know what would happen if I pulled it? How much time did I have to make the decision? Do I know any of the people? How many other people are there? Will my action have legal consequences, or do I believe that my action might have consequences? What might those consequences be? How long do I have to consider the consequences?

It's a stupid picture, because it doesn't answer any of the questions that, ultimately, make it a super-easy choice.

>>10638088
>>10638481
Congratulations. You have just shown that both of your posts are meaningless.

>>10638489
What? Why would you pass up the opportunity to kill 5 black people?

>>10638489
>You choose to kill fewer people
Hold on, why would I want to do that

>>10638493
Because you're an objectively(TM) good person :^)

>>10638492
>>10638493
Don't cut yourself with that edge, boys. But you would. Put six strangers in front of you and say "kill one or kill five" and you'll choose one, if there is zero other information about the scenario than that.

>>10638502
>Put six strangers in front of you and say "kill one or kill five" and you'll choose one
There is literally no guarantee that's the case. There are people who take pleasure in killing others and would choose to kill more people than less if they could. There is no reason to believe that I or the other anon are not such a person, except that you've been surrounded in you life by people who are the opposite.

>>10638513
True. I assumed the question was posed without context such as "is the person being asked a total fucking psycho?"

You make a good argument for why it's a fucking stupid picture. Which I already pointed out back in >>10638489, but whatevs.

>>10638459
No, that has nothing to do with what anon was talking about samefriend. He was just referring that the biological aspect was objective, you don't understand what biological means do you?

>>10638493
*unsheats katana*

>>10638493
*unsheathes katana*

>>10638526
You have added context. There's a lurking premise in your claim that is based on nothing.

You are pretending to interpret anon's comment to be a hypothetical based solely on the need for the body to survive. But that isn't contained within the hypothetical that you're responding to. You made that part up. My interpretation of it as a question about whether the person wishes to survive, and yours as an interpretation of whether or not the body of the person is capable of survival, are both totally subjective.

tldr: you're dumb and wrong.

>>10638502
>>10638528
Let me have my dumb fun.
>>10638502
>Put six strangers in front of you and say "kill one or kill five" and you'll choose one
Not equivalent to the trolley problem. The point isn't whether you can compare one life with five, it's in the (possible) difference between killing and letting die.

>>10638070
Moral relatavism is easily debunked and it's like lesson one in intro classes

If you can get away from a logical argument with the relativism handwave, u can't have real discussions. But there is room for subjectivity, but only in interpretation

>>10638532
How many times are you going to post that image?

Morality is based on affect.

I know what's good and what's evil because I know.

>>10638536
What's wrong with that image?

>>10638534
>Not equivalent to the trolley problem. The point isn't whether you can compare one life with five, it's in the (possible) difference between killing and letting die.
Based solely on the context you're inventing and applying to it. Look at the picture. Even the question of "which track does the trolly go on, if you don't pull the lever" isn't answered by it.

>>10638535
>If you can get away from a logical argument with the relativism handwave, u can't have real discussions
Oh no! I can't have "real discussions" (whatever that means). Moral relativism BTFO!!

>>10638540
nothing

>>10638553
Or is there? I guess it depends on our perspective.

>>10638553
Ok.

>>10638559
STOP POSTING THAT FUCKING FROG HOLY SHIT

>>10638565
Ok. Are you happy now bro? I can't stop the others from posting it though, they might do it just to annoy you now.

>>10638365
Oh look, the sperg doesn't know what objectivity is. End yourself, /pol/tard.
>>10638383
Illiterate

>>10638454
I need antivenom. Ergo it is subjective. Are you autistic?

>>10638535
That's not a debunking, you absolute retard.

>>10638591
It's factual that your body needs antivenom to survive in certain circumstances. That is the biological fact on it. Not arguable; not subjective.

>>10638600
What do you mean by "survive"? Certainly you would be "surviving" at least a little while after getting injected with antivenom. But you wouldn't "survive" indefinitely even if you didn't get injected with antivenom. So where's the cutoff point? How long do you need to live to count as having "survived"?

>>10638489
>TrolleyProblem.jpg
>1 white woman or 5 niggers
I think the joke went over your head, anon.

>>10638608
his example was bad, but you don't understand what biological means clearly. For example, if you understand what objective means, and you understand what biological means, then it is a biological fact that a disease can directly kill somebody, same with venom.

>>10638465
The conundrum deepens.

>>10638635
The nigger would be raping the tied up white girl as the other fiver niggers die. Next question!

>>10638635

>>10638735
What is the race of the second lever-man?

>>10638735
he's latino

>>10638746
>>10638750

>>10638735
The five niggers still die, and the nigger and spic fight over who gets to rape the white girl.

>>10638600
>wikipedia definitions
Nope. Go back to plebbit.
Objects do not have needs, subjects have needs.
>>10638614
Biologically kys please, you STEMsperg retard

>>10638765
No the white girl gets killed too.

>>10638163
Are you retarded?

>>10638482

>>10638635
The plot thickens.

>>10638542
That's because it's a cartoon representation of the problem you mongoloid. The problem clearly states what way the trolley will go. Semantic games are sophistry.

>>10638502
>come on guys everyone is really a utilitarian they just are
>anyone who says they disagree with me is lying, ok I won the argument
Wish I could pull a lever and kill you right now

>>10638491
I think that was the point, tardo.

>>10638482
heh

>>10638400
Never go full postmodernism. Categories are spooks but they are true becuase they are useful and match up with reality. Go read some pragmatic epistomology.

>>10639318
>they are true becuase they are useful
This is such a pathetic cop-out

>>10639065
Utilitarianism is correct. There is literally no argument against killing less people instead of more people.

>>10639318
>are spooks but they are true
Uhhhh

>they are true becuase they are useful and match up with reality
I'm pretty sure this isn't what pragmatism states. But I could be wrong.

>>10638163
Have you cared at all to research and learn or are you sticking to guns you've carried your whole life?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714002054

daily reminder that utilitarians are sociopaths

>>10638400
>Also?
>>>/reddit/

People who think there is no objective morality are self selected out of acadmia

>>10640184
There is literally no argument against killing more people instead of less

>>10638590
>Illiterate
monkey head

My impression is Utilitarianism can be cuckoldry, thanks to that cuck meme a few months back.

>comes home
>sees black dude fucking wife
>feels sad
>realizes that the happiness of two people is better than that of just one
>feels good and walks away

>>10639318
Pragmatism is post-modern you fucking moron.
Reality doesn't exist.
Go read any fucking epistemology you fucking maggot.

>>10640193
What? State your question clearly or stop wasting your superior's time you stupid fuck.

>>10640555
this is the basis for cuck logic usually if you ask them why. they also have autogynophilia and are aroused by women being pleasured in their vicinity.

>>10640795
>are aroused by women being pleasured in their vicinity
Isn't that every man on the planet?

>>>/his/

>>10638358
isn't that the otwer way around? ethics being theoretically objective?

>>10641638
I personally feel disgust whenever a woman feels anything other than extreme discomfort/embarassment

>>10640792
Are you an egoistic relativist because you arrived at that conclusion after years of study and soul-searching, or have you always been selfish and sought philosophies to justify that drive?

I hope this question can help you in some way to better yourself. As it stands, you're conducting yourself like someone with BPD or severe autism, so I don't even know if you're capable of understanding another human being.

>>10638070
Cooperation and its corollary, morality, are embedded in pure mathematics.
Read Axelrod. This site is good too. >ncase.me trust

>>10642151
Still not clarified. Typical sperg.

>>10638342
>>reasoning
>Fuck off to plebbit
What's wrong with saying reasoning?

>>10642549
It's fedorable.

>>10642565
That's retarded

>>10642604
The problem doesn't apply well in this situation because it involves a causation.

>>10638088
>t. anon who doesn't know shit about contemporary philosophy.

Most actual philosophers, including secular, atheistic philosophers believe in something like objective morality.

>>10642577
Not an argument.

>>10643521
Anal autists aren't philosophers.

>>10643894
>philosophers aren't anal autists
jej

>>10638429
Thanks for this, anon.

>>10640788
You're going to have to explain to me how pragmatism is post-modern, anon. There were pragmatists before there were even modernists.

Morality is the set of virtues needed to live happily in society. People tend to live similar lives, so why shouldn't they all share the same morality ?

>>10643544
Neither was yours

>>10638379
>>10644340
Don't listen to him, anon. Within mainstream academic philosophy there is no distinction between 'ethics' and 'morality.' Oh, and yes, a (small) majority of professional philosophers indeed do believe morality is mind-independent, or objective.

>>10638358
Hey, I am no longer illiterate.

>>10638482
nice

>>10638070
Morality is subjective.

>>10638465
If I save her will she sleep with me??

>>10644321
Fuck that cunt John Green. That would've been a cool sticker to have but now he's ruined it for future generations.

>>10640188
Not the other anon, but actually pragmatism states this. Unfortunately. The rest is pretty good to give account of reality without summoning a "hidden nature of things".

>>10638088
I believe in God, and I also believe morality and ethics are subjective. God's morality is probably best, but we can defy God, so other morality exists.

>>10642151
>better yourself meme
Define "better"

>>10644581
>a (small) majority of professional philosophers indeed do believe morality is mind-independent, or objective
What is their argument for this? Sounds retarded, just like the idea that mathematical constructs magically "exist" in some magical abstract plane independent of the mind.

>>10642604

>>10638070
repeat after me OP "nothing is true, everything is permitted"
>>10638849
>Objects do not have needs, subjects have needs.
finally someone who isn't a complete retard.

>>10638070
Some people think that in their finite human life there may be an infinite reward for following certain moral guidelines. If 85 years of "good" action results in a pleasant infinity many would be comfortable saying it is objectively good.

How wrong do most people think Kant is?

People want answers to life. If the answer you provide end in “ but that’s just my opinion” then your answer will be discarded

>>10638429
This is precisely what's wrong with ethics nowadays. You might as well follow the Ten Commandments if you want guidelines to act ethically in any given situation.

Ethos actually comes from the language of herders; by way of example, Homer uses the word to refer to a stable or shed, i.e., an animal's habitation. During the day the animals graze and wander, but everyday they return to their habitation, their ethos, the idea being that it is what one does every day--habits--which creates your sense of ethos.

To act ethically is to act with freedom. As soon as you begin to follow a systematic framework you've given up your freedom, you've traded ambiguity for certainty, and you no longer think for yourself.

>>10638400
t. Doesn't understand the paradigm case argument

most philosophers are also under the impression that it's physically possible for your position on a topic to be 'impassioned and unbiased' when the existence of your job depends on your position being considered valuable by more or less arbitrary committees/bureaucratic tedium so their opinions on anything should not be trusted

>>10638358
ethics and morality are the same

>>10638070

Morality is literally subjective BUT (really big but) human society will never function on such a doctrine.
Social contracts have a tendency to be very convenient lies in this way.

>>10650307
>Some people think that in their finite human life there may be an infinite reward for following certain moral guidelines
They're wrong.

>>10638093
How does that make sense? Are they all assuming an anthropocentric universe and morals existing at a metaphysical level?

>>10650361
>To act ethically is to act with freedom. As soon as you begin to follow a systematic framework you've given up your freedom, you've traded ambiguity for certainty, and you no longer think for yourself.
This is spooky as fuck. When you "follow a systematic framework" you are still acting with freedom.

>>10651222
>Morality is literally subjective BUT (really big but) human society will never function on such a doctrine.
Seemed to work for the hunter-gatherers.

>>10644329
No, and not a single person on the track would want me to pull the lever either. They would die for the NAP

>>10648112
Crossposted from /sci/.

His distance is asymptotic. Particulate matter can still touch at infinitely small distances. My prediction is the friction either tears the ropes off, thus freeing him, or killing him.

>>10651931
Define "touch"

>>10651850
Hello underage. That wasn't a proper answer to the question though.

>>10651969
Like actually physically touch. Eventually the space between them will get atomically small, so they will, for all intents and purposes, be touching.

>>10652323
Well, technically speaking, all that isn't vacuum is filled with atoms bouncing around, hence by even existing you're touching air-atoms which touch each other all the way to atoms that touch other "objects". So by existing one touches everything.

tl;dr I touched yo momma on her private places. Science.

>>10638070
Virtue is, effectively, Knowledge of the Good. As all knowledge is innate, it would follow that there is a strict definition of what Good is. Any complications over subjective morality aren’t the failings of Good’s objectivity, but rather the failure of the individual in recollecting the Knowledge of the Good.

>>10651931
The solution is the sum of infinite number of numbers can be a finite number.

>>10638078
>What good arguments are there that anything is objective
The best one I know is Plato's peritrope from the Theaetetus. If everything is subjective, so too is the principle that everything is subjective.

>>10653095
Yes.

>>10638590
>but biology is objective
>UGH FUCKING /POL/TARD
why are you acting like a strawman comic

Morality doesn't exist
Nothing is right or wrong

>>10654089
>kills ur grandma
haha too bad u dont care right

>>10654092
A common misunderstanding.
If you killed her, the action would not be wrong or right, however this wouldn't stop me being upset about her death, or angry with you for causing it. I cared about her and of course would be sad she is dead, but my emotions for something do not make it right or wrong

>>10654099
this is a blatant contradiction

*read Nietzsche once*

>>10638482
Noice

>>10638358
>Also you're demonstrating an inability to separate ethics and morality
kek

>>10654102
Could you explain why you think so further?

>>10642604
Either way you are causally responcible for killing a person.

Don't switch, save my arm some effort.

>>10653095
Yes

>>10638465
Kill the blacks and fuck that hoe.

>>10654109
if someone harms you or someone you love, you will certainly be upset because in your mind they did a morally bad thing. so even if you claim morality doesnt exist, subconsciously you know it does because otherwise the weight (or evilness) of the action would not evoke emotion in you. same goes for if someone does a good deed for you, you think positively of them and their character (on a moral level)
the mere existence of emotions as rections to actions proves that humans have a natural reaction to assess morality.
which is why most people can safely agree that setting off a bomb in a crowded airport is an evil act. the only people who would disagree would be edgy teenage nihilists with an elementary understanding of Nietzsche

>>10654115
>which is why most people can safely agree that...... is an evil act

That's just consensus it doesn't prove anything. And there are conceivable situations where any act would be agreeabel to certain people.

>if someone harms you or someone you love, you will certainly be upset because in your mind they did a morally bad thing

Only someone who's mind see's actions as caring moral weight would interpret harm as having moral weight. You're arguing in fucking circles here.

In short your whole thought process seems to suggest you are completly incapable of thinking outside your narrow moralizing perspective, and anyone outside that you're probably going to just dismiss. Say calling them 'edgy'.

>>10654115
>you will certainly be upset because in your mind they did a morally bad thing.
This is not the case. I would be upset but not about whether or not their passing was right or wrong but because I cared for them. I would be upset if they passed away peacefully in their sleep, or were murdered.

>if someone does a good deed for you, you think positively of them and their character (on a moral level)
Also not the case. I would be thankful for their kindness but morality is irrelevant to it.

>the mere existence of emotions as rections to actions proves that humans have a natural reaction to assess morality.
Not morality, remember we are animals at the end of the day. We are happy when something is beneficial to us or someone we care about, and sad when something isn't. However these things are not right or wrong, they are just things that happen.

>why most people can safely agree that setting off a bomb in a crowded airport is an evil act
I agree that an act like this should be punished, however not because of whether or not it was morally right or wrong, but because of the harm it causes.
It is not an evil act, just an act. Is a leaf falling from a branch right or wrong? Neither, it is just something that happened, as would be the bombing.

>>10654125
You’re a literal brainlet fella.

From a utilitarian perspective, at the very least, the utility of an action is synonymous with the emotional effect it causes.

One would feel more guilt if they chose to kill the 5 people over the 1 person in the Trolly Problem. Equally, one would feel happy if they managed to save all 6 people. This implies that our emotions have encoded moral decisions evoking them.

If you were a truly amoral being, as you’re suggesting you are, then why would you care for anyone or anything? Psychopaths, the closest we can arguably get to amoral agents, often exhibit a complete lack of care for even the closest family members. Their amorality (note, not immorality) is directly linked to their lack of care. You care for your parents and your grandparents because it is the morally right thing to do, and you feel pain when someone kills them, as a moral law has been broken.

I know you don’t like the idea that you’re submissive to a greater law, but you are, and it is inescapable.

>>10654241
>One would feel more guilt if they chose to kill the 5 people over the 1 person in the Trolly Problem
I get what you're trying to say but I think the Trolly Problem is a bad example, for if you do not pull the lever you did not choose to kill anyone, it is inaction.

>This implies that our emotions have encoded moral decisions evoking them.
If you were to save all 6 people you would feel happy of course, but saying that this is because of some ethereal morality is an assumption, where is the evidence?
We feel happiness because saving them benefits them and us, we are social animals.

>then why would you care for anyone or anything?
I care for them because I am a human with emotions. My emotions do not come from some ethereal morality, but because of familial bonds and satisfaction. It is not right or wrong to care for your family, it is just something I do, like the leaf I mentioned earlier.

>I know you don’t like the idea that you’re submissive to a greater law, but you are, and it is inescapable.
There are many things that are an inescapable reality of a persons life, but a moral code of what is right or wrong is not one of them.

>>10654278
>I get what you're trying to say but I think the Trolly Problem is a bad example, for if you do not pull the lever you did not choose to kill anyone, it is inaction.
I'm not trying to say anything, I said exactly what I mean. The Trolly Problem isn't relevant, as I'm talking purely about emotional (and moral) weight in abstract.

>If you were to save all 6 people you would feel happy of course, but saying that this is because of some ethereal morality is an assumption, where is the evidence?

>We feel happiness because saving them benefits them and us, we are social animals.
If you're reducing morality to evolutionary biology, then why is it that moral laws are so often broken? You're arguing that there is a biological imperative that I follow natural rules of law (don't kill, look after your fellow humans). If that is the case, that following moral laws is as important for my survival as drinking water and curing myself of illnesses, then why is it so easy for me to commit immoral acts? Surely if I am biologically predetermined to commit acts of Good, the idea of committing an act of Bad would be completely unthinkable?

>It is not right or wrong to care for your family, it is just something I do, like the leaf I mentioned earlier.
By this point, you actually don't have an argument. Just claiming that things 'are' is ridiculous and nonsensical. You're not questioning why is it 'something you do', apart from offering a weak biological explanation which is, by the way, invalid.

>>10654364
>then why is it that moral laws are so often broken?
There are no moral laws.
Humans are very complicated creatures, often self serving. We do things in order to benefit ourselves, some take this so far as to commit crime. Or someone might commit crime because of overwhelming emotion.

>the idea of committing an act of Bad would be completely unthinkable?
For the most part this is how it works, you don't have any desire to murder your family do you?

>Just claiming that things 'are' is ridiculous and nonsensical.
Why? Because it offends you?

>You're not questioning why is it 'something you do'
I do things in order to benefit myself and those I care about.

>a weak biological explanation which is, by the way, invalid.
Why? Are we not animals?

I am also still waiting for the evidence that morality exists. Also, intuition is not evidence.

>>10654415
>Humans are very complicated creatures, often self serving. We do things in order to benefit ourselves, some take this so far as to commit crime
Then if humans have equal capacity to do both acts of Good and acts of Bad, then what is it that regulates their decisions? Apart from, you know, a moral code.

>>10654415
>>the idea of committing an act of Bad would be completely unthinkable?

>For the most part this is how it works, you don't have any desire to murder your family do you?
There are thousands of cases of patricide, matricide, fratricide and sororicide. Personally, I don't have any desire to murder my family, but the fact that there is the choice for me to do so if I wish completely defeats your point that we are predelicted towards the Good.

>Why? Because it offends you?
I suppose I just don't understand why you're posting, when you have no evidence or actual argument to back your claims up.

>I do things in order to benefit myself and those I care about.
Why is it then that people donate to charities and NGOs which offer aid to people they have never met on the far-side of the globe. People can feel a moral obligation to protect and help those who are unseen or uncared for personally out of purely charitable or dutiful reasons. If all moral actions taken were passed through the lens of 'familial bonds' and evolutionary biology, then where would be the incentive for caring about absolute strangers? Equally, where would be the incentive for protecting the rights of criminals, as according to your ideology we only preserve those who are 'of value' to us?

>Why? Are we not animals?
I gave you the reason why here:
>Surely if I am biologically predetermined to commit acts of Good, the idea of committing an act of Bad would be completely unthinkable?