Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

[Danmark]

You will get no argument there. It is why, though I often disagree with say Nietzsche, I praise his because he was honestly seeking the right thing. His criticism of faith, and particular the 'church' was unfortunately quite accurate. The benefit of it, even if it is painful to accept stinging criticism, is that the church did change ... it is much more in harmony with science (which as a rationalist I appreciate), and its a much more tolerant church that must rest on its merits rather than its history.

Unfortunately, we don't get enough of that kind of atheism, and, IMHO, many of the current leaders inside atheism fall well short of the intellectual roots of atheism and actively damage the ideology. That is, of course, my opinion, but hopefully as Nietzsche's criticism of religion drove change, perhaps to the criticism of some aspects of modern atheism will also drive it to change in a positive direction? I guess we'll find out?

As for the question of suicide, there are a couple of things that I keep in mind.

#1 - A person who reaches the point of suicidal ideation is no longer thinking entirely rationally or objectively.

#2 - Suicide is a permanent solution to temporary problem.

Humans are wonderfully creative in over coming problems, and indeed such creative capacity drives our technology. Given this fascinating modern age we live in, it is far easier to tie into that capacity with collaborative tools and nformation finding. No matter the problem we face as individuals, there is almost no chance that what we face is something that no else is or has faced. Being able to reach out and connect people is a wonderful blessing in this day and age, and something to be mindful of when someone is reaching out for a final solution to a problem that can either be mitigated or overcome.

Nothing promises us a life free of trail and tribulation, but having, unfortunately, seen the aftermath of suicide, I can say with all honesty that I have never seen it accomplish anything good for anyone ... and it leaves behind a pain and questioning in those around it that is potentially scarring for life.

Not quite sure what that has to do with the topic at hand, but at least its an honest discussion of a moral situation ... so I'll take it for what it is.

Yes to all. The hospice kind of situation may be a special case. The 'rational' suicide, if there is such a thing, should picture the horrible aftermath. What could be worse for a parent or child or mate or friend, to have lost the loved one via suicide. That is why there is often justifiable anger toward the suicide.

I picture the worst kind of hospice situation, where the greatest love may be to tell the dying loved one, that they have your permission to go, and to go in peace. But that is not the situation we are generally talking about.
I have personal experience with the former, but I prefer not to post it publicly.

I want to reiterate that I agree with:

#1 - A person who reaches the point of suicidal ideation is no longer thinking entirely rationally or objectively.

#2 - Suicide is a permanent solution to temporary problem.

[stubbornone]

From Post 174:

Its been addressed, and indeed, you have yet to address any of the counter point Joey.

If by "addressed" you mean waved away with a sweep of the hand, I can't disagree.

I feel confident the observer will conclude that you have no real refutation, and that your claim of "no moral gene" is in error.

All I've seen you do is offer a source of your own to confirm how your source failed.

Once again, I am shocked at how easily atheists will play the victim card.

The day you make me into a victim is the day Hell freezes over.

Unfortunately Joey, not only do the forum rules require you to make your case...

Then report me.

I've already challenged you once to do it.

It's that little ! button up there at the top of the post in question. Do you see the button in question? If not, please ask someone to help you locate it.

Do it man!

C'mon, it's just a mouse click away!

2nd challenge.

so to does the fact that you basely insulted a man and claimed he was ignorant.

Yes, I contend you are ignorant of the data, and of the conclusions my source presents regarding that data. Evidence here being your hand-waving dismissal, more empty, unsupported assertions, and not even once directly addressing the data and conclusions from the site in question.

In either case, no more excuses.

If indeed you have anything else?

LOL


Let me know when you wish to directly address the data in my source, and I'll be glad to continue this. Otherwise, I'll not waste any more time on you.


For those interested in learning more about this issue, a friend was gracious enough to point out http://suite101.com/article/human-moral ... is article. It mentions some of the research involved in animal / human morality.

Another rambling diatribe that is not worth anything more of a response.

No thesis, no support ... just whiney victimization. Noted, and appropriately responded to.

Are we to conclude you couldn't find the button to report me as not supporting my assertion?

LOL

One of y'all do us all a favor and teach stubbornone how to report posts he feels folks ain't offering support for.

We are to conclude that you are incapable of making a relevant point. Thus are treated accordingly.

You seem to have a personal fixation, Really, its entirely one sided.

[stubbornone]

The ever changing goal posts of atheism.

I'm not an atheist, so your claim here is necessarily false.

You claimed that this 'doesn't make it true' and that it is a placebo ... which certainly seems to indicate that you don't think its true. Yet pointing that out is strawman?

Correct, I did claim that it doesn't make it true, but I did not call it a placebo. My example was the placebo scenario. You have a habit it seems of reading in to things that are not there.

And now you deny faith in atheism?

I claim that atheists don't believe in gods. Full stop. You are the one trying to tie on additional baggage.

So, once again, you are going to ask Christians to spell out the proof for God....

Nope, wrong again. I personally don't believe a god concept can be proven nor dis proven, so why would I ask you to spell it out for me. Again, you are reading things into this that are not there.

... but atheists have no faith, and neither do they have any evidence? Nor does their evidenced based position even have a burden of proof? They aren't actually claiming anything?

Correct, I don't believe it very accurate to call what atheist have, faith. I would call it a lack of belief in gods. However, they probably do have some evidence. This evidence would be the lack of evidence of there being a god. This does not prove gods don't exist though of course. Correct, most atheists are not actually claiming anything, unless you call saying "I don't believe in gods" a claim.

And we'll have that debate YET AGAIN, and be lead to the same obvious conclusion that atheists cannot disprove God ... for what reason?

I agree, atheists cannot disprove god. Can you disprove Bigfoot?

So you can deny logic and while calling yourself logical and Christians illogical?

What are you talking about?

That sounds more like a personal choice than a evidenced based conclusion.

What is? Are you still on about proving or disproving a god concept?

But that is atheism.

I think you are one of the last people we should listen to when it comes to what atheism is.

And indeed, the utter inability to spell out a coherent position as in, "Gee, that doesn't make it true ... but I am not saying it is wrong either! Or a placebo, which I just said it was ... er, what exactly is my position again?"

You seem to be rambling...

Why should we treat your position as a logical position?

What is my position again? I recall it being: Religions help some people, I will not argue that. However, that does not make them true." I see no need for you to treat it as logical, but if it's not in your opinion, I would love to hear why you think so.

Indeed a logical position consists of ... from an atheist website mind you ...

A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Like I have told you before, there are all sorts of atheists. Search the web and I promise you that you will continue to find all sorts of things that atheists have said. However, I challenge you to find a concept that atheists must hold on to besides "not believing in gods".

Now, what claim are making and attempting to support?

What! Again. Oh well, here it is: "Religions help some people, I will not argue that. However, that does not make them true."

That miraculous stores mean nothing? That there is or is not something to these things? That faith does not give a boost to resiliency in times of crisis? What?

Read above, I have posted it twice already in this thread alone.

Or is that atheism is not a faith? As in whatchutalkingaboutwillis?

Seriously, what are you talking about willis?

Please establish a position. Its what honest/logical people do.

Ok, for the third time: Religions help some people, I will not argue that. However, that does not make them true."

Do you understand how a thesis statement and support works?

My thesis is that atheism has no moral code or doctrine ... and that this is a bad, rather than good thing.

How you are incapable of that, and need to twist it into "Atheism is no God, and nothing else!" No friggin duh.

Apparently, when lecturing rather than making and supporting claims, its easy to lose sight of the actual debate going on? Get that a lot with atheists, as you do with atheists who insult people of faith on one hand, and then deny being an atheist on the other (let me guess ANOTHER agnostic, who, though not being an atheist understands it perfectly, but a former atheist would not - because he is not atheist ... er, anymore?)

Feel free to address the point, the splotch of random unsupported claims is EXACTLY what I am pointing to when I say that atheism has no standards, no doctrine ... and is thus all over the place.

So ... thank you for providing a perfect demonstration in support of MY THESIS.

Really, the rules of logic are not hard when you at least attempt to use them.

BTW - its good to know you never watched different strokes.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 189:

We are to conclude that you are incapable of making a relevant point. Thus are treated accordingly.

You seem to have a personal fixation, Really, its entirely one sided.

My "personal fixation" is predicated on the following...

...
There is no moral gene. The Human Genome has been mapped.
...

To which I defined that it is "moral" to be pro-social when one is a member of a social species, and offered supporting documentation to show your claim is in error...

...
Individuals who are homozygous for the G allele of the rs53576 SNP of the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene tend to be more prosocial than carriers of the A allele.
...

I contend that the most reasoned conclusion to be had here is that the statement that there are "no moral genes" is in error.

That's what got me here, only to be accused of not supporting my assertion.

And all the while that ! goes unclicked.

It is my contention that accusations that I've not supported my contention are an attempt to besmirch or undermine my integrity, and I will defend myself from such an effort.

It is my contention my accuser is scared of clicking that report button 'cause he's scared of having yet one more accusation or claim of his shown to be in error.

I propose this condition is right there at exactly what the god concept is for. When ignorant*, attribute it to a god. When notions confound, as in the data and conclusions my source presents, declare any and all have not supported their case. (*Where 'ignorant' is merely a lack of knowledge on a given subject)

How?

By coming up with a source that failed in its efforts and declaring such as "see, these folks couldn't do it". By accusing folks of not supporting their claims. By any and all means that will take the confounded away from the data, and into a more comfortable "zone" - that zone being the psycho-emotional comfort the god concept provides.

Why?

The god concept comforts the ignorant and confounded. That is not a nefarious accusation. That is, I contend, the most reasoned and rational conclusion to be had in this matter.

[stubbornone]

From Post 189:

We are to conclude that you are incapable of making a relevant point. Thus are treated accordingly.

You seem to have a personal fixation, Really, its entirely one sided.

My "personal fixation" is predicated on the following...

...
There is no moral gene. The Human Genome has been mapped.
...

To which I defined that it is "moral" to be pro-social when one is a member of a social species, and offered supporting documentation to show your claim is in error...

...
Individuals who are homozygous for the G allele of the rs53576 SNP of the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene tend to be more prosocial than carriers of the A allele.
...

I contend that the most reasoned conclusion to be had here is that the statement that there are "no moral genes" is in error.

That's what got me here, only to be accused of not supporting my assertion.

And all the while that ! goes unclicked.

It is my contention that accusations that I've not supported my contention are an attempt to besmirch or undermine my integrity, and I will defend myself from such an effort.

It is my contention my accuser is scared of clicking that report button 'cause he's scared of having yet one more accusation or claim of his shown to be in error.

I propose this condition is right there at exactly what the god concept is for. When ignorant*, attribute it to a god. When notions confound, as in the data and conclusions my source presents, declare any and all have not supported their case. (*Where 'ignorant' is merely a lack of knowledge on a given subject)

How?

By coming up with a source that failed in its efforts and declaring such as "see, these folks couldn't do it". By accusing folks of not supporting their claims. By any and all means that will take the confounded away from the data, and into a more comfortable "zone" - that zone being the psycho-emotional comfort the god concept provides.

Why?

The god concept comforts the ignorant and confounded. That is not a nefarious accusation. That is, I contend, the most reasoned and rational conclusion to be had in this matter.

Once again, as you preach about ignorance, I will explain it once again.

#1 - your definition of genetics doesn't matter - the scientific one does.

#2 - When someone claims a genetic basis of something like morality, the science of genetics is both well understood and indeed there is a wealth of available evidence that can be used to PROVE that connection.

That goes from the simple: Cystic Fibrosis has a clear genetic marker which is testable.

To the complex: Alcoholism, or at least the suseptability to it, is also genetic, but the evidence for it is requires a more nuanced understanding of the interplay BETWEEN various genes.

Indeed, in response to the moral geneticism, we have the reality that sociopaths are apparently genetically predisposed to violence and immorality, and yet the vast majority of genetic sociopaths behave quite morally. Indeed, the study cited previously, a lawyer claiming genetic causality, fails to explain how the same gene can produce extraordinary violence in one person within the family, mere criminality in other members of the same family, and no criminality whatsoever in other members of the same family? In fact, the social conditioning of said family probably has more influence on the morality of the family (like abuse does on a family as well) than does any one gene.

So there is no actual genetic evidence supporting the claim that morality is based on genes, merely supposition. There is indeed strong genetic evidence that points in the OTHER direction.

To make matters worse, the supposition is not only based on a paucity of genetic evidence, it is based on 'evidence' that is inaccurate. The Dawkins claim of observable morality in animals is deliberately pick and choose evidence - and patently ignores animal behavior that indicates the opposite. Its a case of clear confirmation bias rather than science and only lends greater dismay to the claim ... something a trained biologist should know better about.

Your response has been to blindly dump a single source, one that does not contradict anything I wrote above, and in which I am apparently supposed to search for you and find the part that does?

No thanks. I don't need to find your evidence for you, nor do I need to blindly read everything you dump. If you think there is something critical in YOUR SOURCE, please highlight it in a manner that addressed the FULL ARGUMENT above, and not merely your own version of what you think my words mean.

In the meantime:

“Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere, nature creates very little that is absolutely new. It works up again what already exists. That is the path of all evolution.�
So according to Cohen, the moral feeling came first, then evolved into rules. But just as Darwin refused to address First Life and the origin of the mind, so Cohen does not address the origin of the “moral feeling�, which might be called conscience. And Cohen’s model does not refute that separate populations might develop antithetical codes for their “morality�. His model simply states that for evolutionary success, people learned to get along by doing mutually compatible things. Or at least not getting bashed.

But is the concept of “If you touch my wife, I’ll bash you!� really a moral precept? From the offender’s view point there are two possible points of perception:

(a) I shouldn’t touch his wife because he will hurt me;

(b) I shouldn’t touch his wife because it is wrong.

The first is entirely pragmatic, and could be circumvented when the wife is alone. The second is conscience based, and works under all conditions. Is it likely that (a) will evolve into (b)? No, because evolutionary theory demands the perpetuation of one’s own genetics over all other activities. Perception (a) is the only possible result of the theory of evolution. The concept of “wrongness� could not have evolved, under the definition of survival of the fittest. Just as the existence of selflessness falsifies Darwinian evolution, so it falsifies Cohen’s evolutionary theory of morality, “Evolving Morality� is seen to be another evolutionary crutch for propping up Atheism.

But the most damage to Cohen’s “Evolving Morality� is done by asking who benefits from ethics and morality. It is not the fittest, the strongest. And it is not enough to say that the entire group benefits, because the benefit is not equally realized. It is the weakest, the least fit who benefit the most and are protected from the stronger and more fit. This is directly counter to Darwinist evolution.

The Fittest as an Ethic?
The single moral premise that appears universal to Atheists might be “survival of the fittest�, the main conclusion of the Darwinists. As a moral premise, this suggests that anything that advances the race/species is acceptable. More simply put, “anything that benefits me is acceptable�, which would equate to amorality.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... heism.html

Its a debate, feel free to respond rather than demand that people read things and figure out what you are trying to say. But in a civil discussion, that you take a tangent does not mean other actually interested in the origins of morality have to blindly follow or be harassed.

My case has been made several time Joey, you are free to either respond to them or move on. That simple.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 193:

Once again, as you preach about ignorance, I will explain it once again.

It is my contention that the ignorant'll be the last one to know there they sit sufferin' from it.

I will not entertain any argument from you that fails to directly address the source I presented.

You had the temerity to claim I didn't support my claim.

When you can combine your temerity with the gonads to report my failure, I'll be happy to address such.

Until such time, it is my contention you're an accusatory coward.

REPORT ME YOU ACCUSATIONAL SONOFABISCUITEATER.

YOU COWER IN ACCUSATION AGAINST ME WHILE REFUSING TO ACT ON THAT ACCUSATION!

YOU DARE ATTEMPT TO IMPUGN MY INTEGRITY, WHILE SHOWING YOU HAVE NONE OF IT YOURSELF! YOU SLIMY, SCUMBALL OF AN ACCUSTORY COWARD!

PUSH THE GOL-DANGED BUTTON, OR HAVE THE DECENCY TO ADMIT YOU'RE TOO DANGED IGNORANT OR JUST TO DANGED STUPID TO FIND IT!

UNTIL YOU DO SO, I WILL DECLARE YOUR METHOD OF DEBATE IS A COWARDLY ACT OF AN IGNORANT INDIVIDUAL WHO IS INCAPABLE OF ANYTHING BEYOND HIDING BEHIND YOUR OBVIOUS IGNORANCE, AND YOUR COWARDICE IN ADMITTING THERE YOU SIT WITH A CASE OF IT!

I will NOT have you repeatedly accuse me of failure to support my claims, when it is obvious to all by now that YOU HAVE FAILED TO FIND THE ONE DANGED BUTTON THAT MIGHT EVER POSSIBLY HELP YOUR CASE.


PUSH THAT BUTTON, YOU IGNORANT, ACCUSATORY COWARD!

PUSH IT, GOLDANGIT.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 193:

Once again, as you preach about ignorance, I will explain it once again.

It is my contention that the ignorant'll be the last one to know there they sit sufferin' from it.

I will not entertain any argument from you that fails to directly address the source I presented.

You had the temerity to claim I didn't support my claim.

When you can combine your temerity with the gonads to report my failure, I'll be happy to address such.

Until such time, it is my contention you're an accusatory coward.

REPORT ME YOU ACCUSATIONAL SONOFABISCUITEATER.

YOU COWER IN ACCUSATION AGAINST ME WHILE REFUSING TO ACT ON THAT ACCUSATION!

YOU DARE ATTEMPT TO IMPUGN MY INTEGRITY, WHILE SHOWING YOU HAVE NONE OF IT YOURSELF! YOU SLIMY, SCUMBALL OF AN ACCUSTORY COWARD!

PUSH THE GOL-DANGED BUTTON, OR HAVE THE DECENCY TO ADMIT YOU'RE TOO DANGED IGNORANT OR JUST TO DANGED STUPID TO FIND IT!

UNTIL YOU DO SO, I WILL DECLARE YOUR METHOD OF DEBATE IS A COWARDLY ACT OF AN IGNORANT INDIVIDUAL WHO IS INCAPABLE OF ANYTHING BEYOND HIDING BEHIND YOUR OBVIOUS IGNORANCE, AND YOUR COWARDICE IN ADMITTING THERE YOU SIT WITH A CASE OF IT!

I will NOT have you repeatedly accuse me of failure to support my claims, when it is obvious to all by now that YOU HAVE FAILED TO FIND THE ONE DANGED BUTTON THAT MIGHT EVER POSSIBLY HELP YOUR CASE.


PUSH THAT BUTTON, YOU IGNORANT, ACCUSATORY COWARD!

PUSH IT, GOLDANGIT.

You cowardly, accusational son of a motherless goat.

[Danmark]

PUSH THAT BUTTON, YOU IGNORANT, ACCUSATORY COWARD!

PUSH IT, GOLDANGIT.

You cowardly, accusational son of a motherless goat.

Joey! I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! Uhh... sorry, my mistake. I mean not gambling, but such provocation, especially when I have previously explained why that button does not work on your posts. [What really puts me off is that I did not earn a single smiley for my explanation ]

May I suggest we start over. First, altho' I have given a couple of examples of what may very well be a morality gene:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sci ... oral-gene/

... it seems to me that a theist, even if convinced babies were born with some kind of genetic predisposition to be good, could respond with: 'Well, that does not surprise me. Obviously this is an example of the Holy Spirit blessing them. Who is to say that God could not use or alter natural mechanisms to give humans a reasonable chance to do good. Then we sinners would have even less excuse and more clear responsibility when we 'sin.'

At any rate, I think the debate would be easier to follow if we restricted ourselves to arguing the science involved rather than go off on personal observations about ignorance.

[stubbornone]

From Post 193:

Once again, as you preach about ignorance, I will explain it once again.

It is my contention that the ignorant'll be the last one to know there they sit sufferin' from it.

I will not entertain any argument from you that fails to directly address the source I presented.

You had the temerity to claim I didn't support my claim.

When you can combine your temerity with the gonads to report my failure, I'll be happy to address such.

Until such time, it is my contention you're an accusatory coward.

REPORT ME YOU ACCUSATIONAL SONOFABISCUITEATER.

YOU COWER IN ACCUSATION AGAINST ME WHILE REFUSING TO ACT ON THAT ACCUSATION!

YOU DARE ATTEMPT TO IMPUGN MY INTEGRITY, WHILE SHOWING YOU HAVE NONE OF IT YOURSELF! YOU SLIMY, SCUMBALL OF AN ACCUSTORY COWARD!

PUSH THE GOL-DANGED BUTTON, OR HAVE THE DECENCY TO ADMIT YOU'RE TOO DANGED IGNORANT OR JUST TO DANGED STUPID TO FIND IT!

UNTIL YOU DO SO, I WILL DECLARE YOUR METHOD OF DEBATE IS A COWARDLY ACT OF AN IGNORANT INDIVIDUAL WHO IS INCAPABLE OF ANYTHING BEYOND HIDING BEHIND YOUR OBVIOUS IGNORANCE, AND YOUR COWARDICE IN ADMITTING THERE YOU SIT WITH A CASE OF IT!

I will NOT have you repeatedly accuse me of failure to support my claims, when it is obvious to all by now that YOU HAVE FAILED TO FIND THE ONE DANGED BUTTON THAT MIGHT EVER POSSIBLY HELP YOUR CASE.


PUSH THAT BUTTON, YOU IGNORANT, ACCUSATORY COWARD!

PUSH IT, GOLDANGIT.

You cowardly, accusational son of a motherless goat.

Congrats Joey, for proving that taking issue with the dumping of a source without comment or apparently even relevance to the claims on making ... results in a mental melt down?

Its clear that attempting to engage you civilly is simply not possible. In addition to reporting the post, I would also like to congratulate you on being the first person to earn the coveted ignore feature.

[stubbornone]

PUSH THAT BUTTON, YOU IGNORANT, ACCUSATORY COWARD!

PUSH IT, GOLDANGIT.

You cowardly, accusational son of a motherless goat.

Joey! I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! Uhh... sorry, my mistake. I mean not gambling, but such provocation, especially when I have previously explained why that button does not work on your posts. [What really puts me off is that I did not earn a single smiley for my explanation ]

May I suggest we start over. First, altho' I have given a couple of examples of what may very well be a morality gene:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sci ... oral-gene/

... it seems to me that a theist, even if convinced babies were born with some kind of genetic predisposition to be good, could respond with: 'Well, that does not surprise me. Obviously this is an example of the Holy Spirit blessing them. Who is to say that God could not use or alter natural mechanisms to give humans a reasonable chance to do good. Then we sinners would have even less excuse and more clear responsibility when we 'sin.'

At any rate, I think the debate would be easier to follow if we restricted ourselves to arguing the science involved rather than go off on personal observations about ignorance.

Well, there is the rub Dan, the science is anything but clear, and in the later serotonin levels and implications of harm ... doesn't really point to morality. As it happens, my life has been spend having to grapple with that very question as a Soldier ... and the end result of that exploration ... well, its changed. Indeed, renowned Samurai Miyamoto Musashi, had a similar journey with violence. He began as a younger man persecuting his duels and battles with extreme prejudice (i.e. he killed his adversaries without exception). In the later portion of his life, he gentled quite a bit, and simply fought his duels to the point where the other man realized he had no chance of defeating him and simply quit. Arguably, the later is a significantly greater demonstration of skill.

That is a personal example of the use of violence in morality. Unfortunately, the use of violence, beyond simple criminality (where it is hard to use an excuse to justify such behavior as moral), there is the reality that violence is sometimes necessary - incredibly so. In fact, it begins with the oft heard phrase:

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing - Edwin Burke

And there is indeed truth to this, truth that is no doubt born out in history. What is men had not decided to stand up to Hitler and Stalin? What a different world we would live in today. What if Protestants were unwilling to stand up to the sins and excesses of the Catholic Church? Not only would the Catholic Church be a rotten core of corruption, the message of Jesus lost to all Catholics in excuse of corruption, but it is doubtful that the very modern state would exist ... which flowed out of the Treaty of Westphalia in which the foundations of the modern Nation state, and indeed secularism (freedom of conscience) was made pre-eminent.

One must literally avoid these events entirely if one is to conclude that violence in ALWAYS immoral.

The other side is readily made plain as well. As previously addressed simple criminality points to the immorality of violence. Indeed, many of the wars we humans have fought have been anything but just, and, unfortunately, some of the wars we have fought even for the best of intentions have been so badly mismanaged that the resulting killing could perhaps accurately be called murder.

Clearly a case for avoiding unnecessary violence can be made quite clearly.

And these moral questions continue to hit us:

Is violence OK when protecting ones family? I would clearly think so, as there is nothing more precious to us anywhere.

Is violence to protect property OK? Depends doesn't it? If someone is picking a tomato from your garden, it may be your property, but violence is probably not the best answer. Yet our homes and livelihoods, as with the LA riots, plainly points in the other direction.

Is violence OK is protecting personal choices? Arguably it is when protecting the freedom of choice, but to use violence to extend your choice on others is almost universally wrong.

I guess that is along version of stating that the study in SA is flawed from a moral standpoint. the use of violence is not a moral imperative. I for one would be more impressed if those serotonin levels produced a demonstrably different attitudes on something like adultery (which, though justified by some - not me - is clearly damaging), clear cut cases of lying, or stealing.

Serotonin is also something that our choices effect greatly. There is a genetic component to it, but there are also may choices involved that effect the levels as well - levels of activity, gender, etc. etc. Thus making a clear indicative moral question based on the such a fluctuating level would be a very difficult case to make.

In analogy, when I ride my bike, my overall opinion on the use of violence does not shift based on higher serotonin levels. What may shift is mood and opinion, and anyone who has ever been crotchety knows that there are reasons for crotchetiness that goes well beyond our genetic code.

I also find myself deeply philosophically opposed to such notions. Not only do they have a profound potential effect on our jurisprudence, that effect is something I take quite seriously - we are all responsible for our actions and choices - and their consequences good and bad.

I simply see no other way to BE moral?

And having our choices predispositioned by our genes is little different from Calvinist approaches to God's preordination of events.

That being said, there are clearly things on a genetic level that CAN effect the difficulty of making choices. An example would be alcohol, some of us are pre-disposed to alcoholism - and alcoholism is wrecker. It is something that being aware of will help us and those around us make better choices in terms of morality ... but all the susceptibility to alcoholism in the world doesn't prevent you from deciding to not drink ...

Therein is the crux, whether we are moral or not ... its our choice. Not God's, not our upbringing, not even our genes force us to make the choices we make.