But that's the whole point of what I said--outside of a religious context, morality isn't objective. There's no defined laws of the universe for morality. Societies determine it as they go and everyone doesn't agree. Even within religion, there's often disagreement, so it's extremely questionable whether even religion has "objective morality." Slavery was at one time considered perfectly moral in this country (by the religious and irreligious, though the religious were much more dominant at the time). Now it's considered horrific. Morality evolves.
I agree it has holes, and that's because Sam Harris is a philosopher as well as a scientist. He just tries to base his philosophical ideas on science.
I actually like Sam Harris. He doesn't come off as some pompous prick. He has a that "calmness" and rational way of trying to describe things.
I do agree that morality could evolve, but should we allow those countries to evolve at their pace? Example: I seem to remember 10 years ago, Afghanistan people could shoot a woman in the head for not following the rules. Wasn't an Asian housekeeper put to death in Saudi Arabia for practicing witch-craft? A naturalist should not interfere with the natural evolution of another area, yet, we do.
Links between murder and genetics are junk science at best. Tho it's obvious that a mental disorder might reduce or eliminate a person's inhibitions. Like I said, in cultures less Western ideology, killing was accepted, ordinary, commonplace, sport, etc. if there were some genetic disposition against, whole societies wouldn't accept it. We have, in effect, a control or placebo in those cultures.
I really don't know. I was simply offering what I thought might be a component. Neither of us are in neurosciences, and even if we were, I don't believe there is a conclusion to this. But to me murder seems so counter intuitive, I have such a visceral reaction to the thought of it, let alone doing it, that it makes me think there is something deeper than just how I was raised. We do know via separated twin studies that if one twin is violent, the other twin is also more likely to be violent. It seems to me that an extension of that violence would be murder.
I'm not sure why you believe a "naturalist" (I assume you mean someone who believes morality does not come from gods) should never interfere with morality in other areas. Sure, there is some cultural relativism, but we're all a part of a world society too. We have things like the Geneva Conventions for that reason. Sometimes intervention is considered necessary (many would argue the Holocaust is such an example, though it's extremely debatable how much the Holocaust was actually a factor in the world war), but intervention carries a steep cost and often causes more misery. So it's always a very complicated issue.
The "secular" is redundant. There's morality and there's non-morality. What's "religious morality"? Rules you follow because you think something told you to?
Mar Azul and Mags, I laid out clearly where I believe morality comes from, I didn't dodge nor did I sling mud at religion. In my first post I stated exactly my thoughts without filter. Stop acting like everyone is obfuscating their thoughts on "secular morality".
Why not take 10 seconds on google and go to the source? Secular humanist manifesto humanist manifesto
Is foolhardy... [video=youtube;SUMC6ZsyylY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUMC6ZsyylY&list=UUJ5PQfYe6er4rrt4LLu7EKg[/video] [video=youtube;3JC8yY0SaBM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JC8yY0SaBM[/video] Wake Up.
i think it has a lot to do with how the reptilian draconian overlords have subverted our brains instinctual programming with speech triggers and consumerism
There is no secular code. I used the phrase "secular morality" in context referring to the fact that religious people (most of the time) in actuality base their view of right and wrong on judgment/feelings that are derived independently from texts of their particular religion. In other words they parse their religious texts using a separate, secularly derived standard. That standard is typically based on a combination of social norms and their own personal common sense.
Good book. Unfortunately SH got in a lot of trouble with philosophers when he tried to paint his views on morality (evolutionary fitness landscape, prioritizing well-being of sentient creatures) as potentially scientifically objective. Trying to turn morality into a science is always going to have a ton of philosophical baggage.
A surprising amount of secular philosophers are in fact moral realists. They believe moral axioms do objectively exist in the same "platonic realm" sense as many feel axioms of logic and numbers do. I personally think the notion is too anthropocentric to be meaningful, but there are some really smart atheists that buy into it.
