Kenny and I had previous exchanges that we reached a common ground on.Audie wrote:Could you please say why you think as in bold?K wrote:For the Atheist, there is Evolution... however, this seems a little odd to me, particularly because science may contradict what we intuitively know to be morally wrong. I agree with you that we should not use science to determine morality. For example, the rape example I mentioned earlier. Far from being the "hottest" source, science can lead people to a quite cold morality.
Thoughts? I'm also happy for you to prod in a direction if there's something else you'd like to explore further.
In response to the "rape example" I provided of what some evolutionary thinkers believe is a way for undesirables to pass on their genes.
This pricks my own conscience -- rape is never in any way morally fine even if it might be a natural phenomenon.
Kenny's response was that science should not be used to determine morality. I agreed with him.
The reason I agreed is because "Science" deals with the physical world.
Ethics or Moral Philosophy is needed to explore with moral truths.
So any justification that science might bring to bear on moral issues I believe is a category error.
It is like saying what is the shape of the colour red. Colour has not shape. It is a category error to think it does.
That is why I readily agreed with Kenny that science should not be used to determine morality.
Kenny and I also had exchanges over morality being an intrinsic part of us.
Such that, even if everyone thought it alright to kill Kenny for fun they would still be wrong.
Or if religion thought it alright to kill Kenny, that religion would be morally wrong.
So Kenny and I agreed that morality seems to be an innate part of us, even if society and religion can still greatly influence what we see as morally right and wrong.
Kenny also made the distinction that "we" are not animals.Audie wrote:As for the example you used earlier, while there is a sort of countercurrent thing there,
there is more to the picture than that being an exception to disprove a rule.
With salmon, for example, the 'king" or "Chinook" salmon, the males may weigh as much as 100 lbs. The contest for females is just that, a contest.
BUT, while the big boys are busy contesting, a "jack" (sorry Jack) salmon can slip in and fertilize some eggs.
The "jack" is a two yr old that may weigh five pounds, and in no way could compete directly.
It is a successful strategy, to some extent. But it has not resulted in the entire population of males being 5 pounders any more than human society has gone to an all-rape reproduction system.
We are of higher intelligence and are just aware that some things are morally right and wrong.
I agreed with him.
There also isn't really much I disagree with you on here in your example.
Certainly society isn't going to go to an all-rape reproduction system because of an idea proposed by some evolutionary thinkers.
However, there are those, who would agree with their logic. I'm sure there are rapists that really don't care, and such thinking is dangerous to women and young girls.
It provides justification for rape in some instances, something which my moral conscience screams is wrong, as I'm sure yours would.
I shudder to think that any education institution, like the University of California Santa Barbara, would promote:
"That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict."
Where are the brakes to stop educated people becoming fools and forsaking what many intrinsically know to be wrong?
Kenny is right. Science should not guide what is or is not moral.
I don't mean to insult on intellectual people, as I consider myself somewhat intellectual.
But often the smartest and most educated people reach the dumbest conclusions.
Sometimes when I hear this or that comment, I think that must have come from someone highly educated, because no uneducated person would make such foolish statements.
(cheap shot)
that's like calling the pope a Protestant. 
).