Scientific Morality and the Problem of Evil

[dianaiad]

In a very recent thread, the following was written by Divine Insight:

So the scientific morality is far more realistic. It doesn't even recognize that there are evil people. It simply recognized mental illness and that people who do bad things are simply driven to do them because of mental problems.

I was struck by it, a sort of 'throw away' comment in a post addressing something very different. Anything I wanted to say had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was found.

So...new thread.

Subject to the definition of 'evil,' of course, which I define as any action done for selfish, immoral or unethical reasons, to deliberately cause harm, no matter how slight. Natural phenomena are not evil; they simply exist. Actions which may seem evil in the eyes of an observer may not be evil, depending on the knowledge of the actor, his motive and his ultimate purpose.

If someone disagrees with the above definition, please provide yours before engaging in this thread so that we will all know what we are talking about.

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

............is there really no evil?

Are all so-called evil acts the result of mental illness, so that the doers of evil cannot be blamed or held accountable?

[Divine Insight]

Is a psychopath without reason or just uncaring? Crimes of evil are not necessarily insane or without reason unless you count an addiction to evil as insanity which would be hard as it is not a recognized addiction. Apropos of that, is an addiction to anything considered a mental illness or an insanity?

It seems to me that a person would need to be insane to be attracted to anything that's truly harmful, hurtful, and damaging to other people in the first place. Drugs actually don't even qualify here because people's first attraction to drugs is typically not an attraction to do hurtful and harmful things. It's actually the addiction to the drugs after the fact that causes those things.

I'm not saying that doing drugs is a good idea. I'm just saying that typically people don't start out taking drugs with a desire to do evil things. And because of this they actually become victims of the drug. That's a perfectly understandable secular position, no need to invoke any God to understand that one. Becoming addicted to drugs would be a stupid thing to do even in a purely secular world.

It seems more likely that moral disorders if accepted have little to do with disorders of the mind which could be labeled insanity. Therefore a perfectly sane and reasonable person might practice evil from strong inner emotional urges accepted as reasons without care that others think the reasons are evil, self destructive or criminal.

I believe that it would be fair in a secular philosophy to conclude that such individuals are indeed "mentally ill".

My career was spent with teens who were behaviour disordered, the current non-pejorative way of pigeon holing them, and the euphemisms for their difficulties in life could float a ship. Some were impaired or low functioning mentally, others emotionally undeveloped (as chosen by any number of psychosocial experts), and some had good cognitive ability with no particular neurosis or compulsion of any kind who just didn't care whether someone got hurt or not by their activities...in other words, they seemed fine in every area of humanity except for their morals. But who knows...

Peace, Ted

Well, many of their problems could indeed have been caused by their environment and upbringing. Don't blame the child for having failed parents of other mentors.

I don't blame people who have been dealt a bad hand in life for having a chip on their shoulder and not caring about other people. Why should they when from there point of view nobody cares about them?

There are sound and valid secular reasons why abused and neglected children should grow up to become embittered and angry people. Are you going justify casting these unfortunate souls into an eternal state of damnation for their unfortunate upbringing?

I have difficulty in seeing where anyone is ultimately responsible for anything in this life. If they have a real desire to hurt other people it is most likely for one of two reasons. Either they themselves have been seriously hurt by others, or they are mentally ill in some way. Period.

You'd have a very hard time convincing me that there exists evil people in this world who have had great parents and were treated nice by other people and are NOT mentally ill, yet they still get off on hurting other people and causing other people harm.

It seems to me that this type of behavior is automatically mental illness. What sense does it make to call it sane?

If there exists a magical God who can cast evil demons out of everyone and cure everyone from mental illness then what's left? If there are any evil people left after that then why doesn't this God himself rid the world of such people and why did he create them in the first place?

Look at the men who flew planes into the world trade centers in the name of God.

What were they?

Were they evil men? Were they mentally ill? Clearly they thought they were doing the will of God.

Why didn't this God appear before these men and say to them, "I do not condone what you are about to do". If these men were truly interested in doing God's will and obeying God that would have stopped them in their tracks.

Any God who would allow anyone to carry out atrocities in HIS NAME (under any religion) is a totally irresponsible God IMHO. In fact, if a God exists who can intervene in the world he is without excuse for not eradicating all false religions. And he wouldn't even need to harm anyone to do it. All he would need to do is show up instead of playing stupid hide-and-seek games.

Clearly there is no God.

At least not one who gives a hoot about religion or interventions of any kind.

The Biblical God had no problem intervening in a bunch of petty and violent stuff in the Bible, but he can't intervene intelligently when it would really make a difference?

As far as I'm concerned this observation proves the fallacy of the Biblical fables.

And what's he going to do now, send embittered teens to hell because no one ever showed them any love?

[dianaiad]

Is a psychopath without reason or just uncaring? Crimes of evil are not necessarily insane or without reason unless you count an addiction to evil as insanity which would be hard as it is not a recognized addiction. Apropos of that, is an addiction to anything considered a mental illness or an insanity?

It seems to me that a person would need to be insane to be attracted to anything that's truly harmful, hurtful, and damaging to other people in the first place.

<snip to end>

I'm getting, from the general tenor of your posts, that you think that any evil act..any deliberately harmful act done by a human...is the result of a mental illness. Indeed, I get the impression that you are arguing that any act of evil must be the result of mental illness, because no sane person would engage in such.

Hmnn.

That might pose a problem for society.

Right now, most people understand that the mentally ill are not so by choice; that they cannot be held legally or morally accountable for actions taken as a direct result of their illness. If, as you seem to be claiming, ALL evil is the result of mental illness, that leaves us in a bit of a mess.

We would not be able to punish people for breaking laws, or indeed, bother to pass any. Why bother?

Most psychiatrists figure that, mentally ill or not, if you understand that what you are doing is against the law, or is morally/ethically wrong, and are not compelled to an action by an irresistible drive, then you can indeed choose to NOT do whatever it is that you did, and are thus sane enough to be held responsible for your actions.

In other words, if you know that what you are about to do will hurt someone (even yourself) and if you know it's against the law, and you CAN choose not to do whatever it is and choose to do it anyway, then you are sane, as far as that act is concerned.

Someone here argued that one shouldn't call the little wrong things evil when the big wrong things are: that is, murder is evil....can we also call stealing a pack of gum from your friend's open school locker evil, too?

Sure. Just as there are great and small 'goods,' there are great and small evils; if there is a better alternative, one less harmful, more ethical, less selfish...then it's evil, no matter how tiny it is. Just as any choice which is the best of all available ones, no matter how small a choice, is good.

Because in the long run, 'evil' is about choice. Ours. Someone here also defined 'evil' as 'that which makes us unhappy." OK, as a general...if squishy, definition, it's pretty good too. It certainly covers stuff that some call evil like the earthquake in Napa Valley today, or the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius a couple of thousand years ago (why does all this sort of thing happen on my birthday? Now that's just wrong. Let it happen on someone else's birthday and annoy them). Those things were only evil insofar as they made people unhappy....like the fantastic geysers in Yellowstone aren't evil unless someone falls in, sort of thing.

As for me, evil is a matter of choice. If you have a choice before you, and you KNOW which one is the better, more ethical, morally superior choice, and you make another choice, you are choosing evil. Even in the smallest of decisions.

[Divine Insight]

We would not be able to punish people for breaking laws, or indeed, bother to pass any. Why bother?

Two things here. First, all laws aren't about morality. A person doesn't necessarily need to be mentally ill to break a law. Nor to they need to have any intent to harm someone by breaking a law. In fact, they might actually be in disagreement with the law.

Secondly, I agree that we should never punish anyone for committing a crime. Does this mean that we can't incarcerate dangerous people? Of course not. We can incarcerate dangerous people for the same reasons we might incarcerate a rabid bear. Not to punish the bear but to protect other people from being attacked by the bear. Any legal system that is thinking in terms of punishing the criminals is already lost.

Most psychiatrists figure that, mentally ill or not, if you understand that what you are doing is against the law, or is morally/ethically wrong, and are not compelled to an action by an irresistible drive, then you can indeed choose to NOT do whatever it is that you did, and are thus sane enough to be held responsible for your actions.

Being held responsible for actions and being "punished" for them are two entirely different things.

In other words, if you know that what you are about to do will hurt someone (even yourself) and if you know it's against the law, and you CAN choose not to do whatever it is and choose to do it anyway, then you are sane, as far as that act is concerned.

Well again, one can argue that if someone does something to purposefully hurt someone else can that truly be said to be a "sane decision"?

If not, then what sense does it make to say that a person who has made such a decision is sane?

Someone here argued that one shouldn't call the little wrong things evil when the big wrong things are: that is, murder is evil....can we also call stealing a pack of gum from your friend's open school locker evil, too?

I think there are big differences. Especially if the person who "stole" the pack of gum didn't think the friend would actually care. I mean, clearly you are trying hard to make this as innocent of a "sin" as you possibly can, but in this case I think you have made it so innocent that it may very well be innocent.

Sure. Just as there are great and small 'goods,' there are great and small evils; if there is a better alternative, one less harmful, more ethical, less selfish...then it's evil, no matter how tiny it is. Just as any choice which is the best of all available ones, no matter how small a choice, is good.

Now you're trying to get into idealized perfectionism. Show me the commandment in the Bible where it is written, "Thou shalt be absolutely perfect in everything you do"

Obviously if we want to bring out "Perfectionism" as a standard we can argue that nobody is perfect. Is this supposed to vindicate the Bible?

Because in the long run, 'evil' is about choice. Ours. Someone here also defined 'evil' as 'that which makes us unhappy." OK, as a general...if squishy, definition, it's pretty good too. It certainly covers stuff that some call evil like the earthquake in Napa Valley today, or the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius a couple of thousand years ago (why does all this sort of thing happen on my birthday? Now that's just wrong. Let it happen on someone else's birthday and annoy them). Those things were only evil insofar as they made people unhappy....like the fantastic geysers in Yellowstone aren't evil unless someone falls in, sort of thing.

As for me, evil is a matter of choice. If you have a choice before you, and you KNOW which one is the better, more ethical, morally superior choice, and you make another choice, you are choosing evil. Even in the smallest of decisions.

You can certainly label things that way to bolster a religions dogma. A dogma that happens to endorse male-chauvinist, slavery, religious bigotry and many other things I might add.

But why label them as evil? Why not label them as potentially selfish. Potentially stupid. Potentially a mistake. Potentially merely not the perfect choice.

The problem with the Biblical picture of the world is that everyone would need to be perfectly sane and capable of thinking clearly in order to make that kind of "evil choices" meaningful. But we know that's not the real world. And this is especially true when we get into the more hideous of crimes.

Secular science has shown that there exist such things a psychopaths who simply don't identify with compassion or feelings for others. What are such people doing in a world that was "Designed" to be judging sane people for having made willfully bad decisions when they clearly knew better and had a perfectly sane brain?

There is something wrong with a reality where everyone is supposed to be judged in the same way, yet everyone doesn't have the same temptations.

I have never been tempted to rape a woman, or a child, or purposefully go out and destroy other people's property. So what happened there? Did I get a "Get out of Temptation for FREE card" when I was born?

I have no desire to rob a bank or hold up a market at gun point. I don't even have any temptation steal money passively. If I went into a restroom at a Walt-mart and found a wallet laying on the floor filled with lots of money I would just turn it into the lost and found, or use the ID cards to have the owner paged and return it to them personally.

If I would give money back that's laying around I'm sure as heck not going to go out of my way to steal money.

So what happened? Did I get the "Get out of Temptation for FREE card" when I was born?

Why are some people tempted to do bad things and others are not?

If life is a test to see who will be moral then everyone should be tempted by the same amount. I should at least WANT to do these bad things and have to fight against the temptation to do the. But that's not the case.

So there's something dramatically wrong here.

If someone else is being tempted to do these things it can't simply be that I am strong and they are weak. I can't say that I'm 'strong' in terms of resisting temptation. I've never been tempted to do bad things. So no strength is required on my behalf.

I evidently got that "Get out of Temptation for FREE card" when I was born.

How lucky am I!

But the even bigger question is why wasn't everyone as lucky as me?

Something is grossly unfair. And look at who's complaining that things are unfair? The person who actually got the lucky "Get out of Temptation for FREE card". And yet I can still see how this is so grossly unfair to everyone else.

[dianaiad]

We would not be able to punish people for breaking laws, or indeed, bother to pass any. Why bother?

Two things here. First, all laws aren't about morality. A person doesn't necessarily need to be mentally ill to break a law. Nor to they need to have any intent to harm someone by breaking a law. In fact, they might actually be in disagreement with the law.

Secondly, I agree that we should never punish anyone for committing a crime. Does this mean that we can't incarcerate dangerous people? Of course not. We can incarcerate dangerous people for the same reasons we might incarcerate a rabid bear. Not to punish the bear but to protect other people from being attacked by the bear. Any legal system that is thinking in terms of punishing the criminals is already lost.

Most psychiatrists figure that, mentally ill or not, if you understand that what you are doing is against the law, or is morally/ethically wrong, and are not compelled to an action by an irresistible drive, then you can indeed choose to NOT do whatever it is that you did, and are thus sane enough to be held responsible for your actions.

Being held responsible for actions and being "punished" for them are two entirely different things.

In other words, if you know that what you are about to do will hurt someone (even yourself) and if you know it's against the law, and you CAN choose not to do whatever it is and choose to do it anyway, then you are sane, as far as that act is concerned.

Well again, one can argue that if someone does something to purposefully hurt someone else can that truly be said to be a "sane decision"?

If not, then what sense does it make to say that a person who has made such a decision is sane?

Someone here argued that one shouldn't call the little wrong things evil when the big wrong things are: that is, murder is evil....can we also call stealing a pack of gum from your friend's open school locker evil, too?

I think there are big differences. Especially if the person who "stole" the pack of gum didn't think the friend would actually care. I mean, clearly you are trying hard to make this as innocent of a "sin" as you possibly can, but in this case I think you have made it so innocent that it may very well be innocent.

Sure. Just as there are great and small 'goods,' there are great and small evils; if there is a better alternative, one less harmful, more ethical, less selfish...then it's evil, no matter how tiny it is. Just as any choice which is the best of all available ones, no matter how small a choice, is good.

Now you're trying to get into idealized perfectionism. Show me the commandment in the Bible where it is written, "Thou shalt be absolutely perfect in everything you do"

Mathew 5:48; that last admonishment of Christ's, from His sermon on the Mount: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

There you go.


the biggest problem here is that, if you are going to define 'insanity' as "someone who commits an evil act,' there is no way we can then argue about whether a sane person can commit such an act.

I think that all of us are capable of, and have, chosen evil over good at some time in our lives...and on more than one occasion. Does that mean that all of mankind is mentally ill?

If so, that defeats the entire purpose of attempting to find the mentally ill so that they can be helped.

Someone who is mentally ill may not know that his actions are evil/wrong, or if he knows, is not able to stop himself.

Someone who sees a choice, and chooses the evil one for selfish reasons even though he understands which choice is the moral one, which is the unselfish one, or which is the one that will do the most good (with the least harm to others)...that person is not mentally ill. That person is sane.

And making an evil choice.

To call someone doing an evil thing 'mentally ill' is to excuse his actions and accept them; even justify them, because the truly mentally ill are not responsible for their actions; they can't help their choices.

Those who CAN choose, and deliberately choose evil...these are, at the moment of the choice, evil. Not ill.

However, if you don't like the word 'punishment' in regard to incarcerating those who do evil things, then try 'consequences.'

And that brings up another problem. There are those who truly are not responsible for their actions; those who honestly don't understand that the things they are doing are wrong, or those who are incapable of making a different choice even when they understand that what they are doing is wrong.

If the culture decides that the definition of 'mentally ill' is 'anybody who does evil,' then how do we decide who gets help? The guy who robs a liquor store because he wants the cash, or the looter who takes advantage of a riot in order to 'do some shopping' and get a free TV set, according to your definition, is on the same level as the schizophrenic who is compelled to knock over every other mail box on the street because the voices in his head told him to do so.

If we go by your definition, the looter (who just wants a free TV) and the schizophrenic would be put in the same place; they are both mentally ill, yes?

No....I don't think we can do that. We might be idealistic and figure that no 'sane person' would harm another, but that's not the legal or medical definition of sanity.

It only trivializes the problem of mental illness, it excuses the actions of those who know very well what they are doing, and choose evil because evil gets them what they want; that TV set.

[instantc]

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

Seems like your question is built on a misunderstanding of the argument, Dianaiad. Secularists are not saying that there exists a problem of evil in the real world. Rather, they are saying that there exists a problem of evil in Christian dogma. That is to say that the Christian account of the world involves a contradiction. According to it, there exists an omnibenevolent creator, and yet everywhere around us we see morally inexplicable suffering that is designed by the said creator. In a secular world a tsunami is not evil, it's just a natural process that happens to be dangerous to people. On the other hand, in a theistic world a tsunami would be a manifestation of evil, as it is designed that way by a person for no morally justifiable reason.

[Divine Insight]

I think that all of us are capable of, and have, chosen evil over good at some time in our lives...and on more than one occasion. Does that mean that all of mankind is mentally ill?

Yes I would say so. After all is any human perfect? In fact, why would Jesus ask people to be perfect if this is impossible?

I think this is just further proof that Jesus was not divine.

If so, that defeats the entire purpose of attempting to find the mentally ill so that they can be helped.

Why? It just means that far more people need help than we originally thought. I for one would not be the least bit surprised by this.

Someone who is mentally ill may not know that his actions are evil/wrong, or if he knows, is not able to stop himself.

If only one person is mentally ill that pretty much blows a hole in the idea that some God is testing humans on morality. But we already know that far more than one person is mentally ill. Fortunately not all mental illness leads to actions that are harmful or even illegal. There are mentally ill people who happen to have very loving unselfish personalities too. But that's beside the point for this discussion. We only need to have one human soul who is at a disadvantage for being tested morally and the whole divine judgmental system breaks down. It just like with logic. One counter example is all it takes to make a proof.

Someone who sees a choice, and chooses the evil one for selfish reasons even though he understands which choice is the moral one, which is the unselfish one, or which is the one that will do the most good (with the least harm to others)...that person is not mentally ill. That person is sane.

And making an evil choice.

So you think that making evil choices is a sane thing to do?

That's basically what you are requiring here.

To call someone doing an evil thing 'mentally ill' is to excuse his actions and accept them; even justify them, because the truly mentally ill are not responsible for their actions; they can't help their choices.

Do you accept the actions of mentally ill people?

If a mentally ill man was violently raping your daughter would you just stand by and say, "It's ok he's mentally ill and doesn't know any better"?

I don't think so. I think you would call the police or stop him yourself and you would expect him to be incarcerated even if in a mental institution. In fact, don't we already incarcerate people in mental institutions who haven't even committed crimes?

Those who CAN choose, and deliberately choose evil...these are, at the moment of the choice, evil. Not ill.

That's obviously your opinion, not one that I necessarily share.

But I will grant that some people may indeed have a chip on their shoulder and be angry with society or whatever too. So they are purposefully out to harm other people. Still, I think that too is a form of mental and/or emotional illness or certainly an imbalance, etc.

However, if you don't like the word 'punishment' in regard to incarcerating those who do evil things, then try 'consequences.'

But your looking at this from their perspective. Instead of thinking of it that way, why not look at them from the outside as someone who needs help. You know, the "love your enemies" etc.

Also, who are you supposed to be turning your cheek to? Genuinely evil people only? Or should you also turn the other cheek to dangerously mentally ill people?

Are you supposed to only love those who are evil? Or are you supposed to love the mentally ill too? And how are you supposed to tell the difference?

And that brings up another problem. There are those who truly are not responsible for their actions; those who honestly don't understand that the things they are doing are wrong, or those who are incapable of making a different choice even when they understand that what they are doing is wrong.

If the culture decides that the definition of 'mentally ill' is 'anybody who does evil,' then how do we decide who gets help? The guy who robs a liquor store because he wants the cash, or the looter who takes advantage of a riot in order to 'do some shopping' and get a free TV set, according to your definition, is on the same level as the schizophrenic who is compelled to knock over every other mail box on the street because the voices in his head told him to do so.

Everyone should get help without exception. The concept of "deserved punishment" is archaic and barbaric. The fact that religions support that mentality is indeed a problem.

If we go by your definition, the looter (who just wants a free TV) and the schizophrenic would be put in the same place; they are both mentally ill, yes?

No....I don't think we can do that. We might be idealistic and figure that no 'sane person' would harm another, but that's not the legal or medical definition of sanity.

It only trivializes the problem of mental illness, it excuses the actions of those who know very well what they are doing, and choose evil because evil gets them what they want; that TV set.

Who are we to pass judgement on who's mentally ill and who is an intentionally evil person?

Why should we even get into the business of trying to make that kind of distinction?

We need to treat other people more like how we would like to be treated:

[youtube][/youtube]

[ttruscott]

Is a psychopath without reason or just uncaring? Crimes of evil are not necessarily insane or without reason unless you count an addiction to evil as insanity which would be hard as it is not a recognized addiction. Apropos of that, is an addiction to anything considered a mental illness or an insanity?

It seems to me that a person would need to be insane to be attracted to anything that's truly harmful, hurtful, and damaging to other people in the first place.

<snip to end>

I'm getting, from the general tenor of your posts, that you think that any evil act..any deliberately harmful act done by a human...is the result of a mental illness. Indeed, I get the impression that you are arguing that any act of evil must be the result of mental illness, because no sane person would engage in such.

Hmnn.

That might pose a problem for society.

...

I'm tempted to be accepting of DI's interpretation if human mental illness is equated to a spiritual addiction to evil, though defining spiritual moral principles in psycho analytic terminology might not be all that helpful . 'All are born sinners' would then be 'all are born with a mental illness' that has decayed their morals in a manner the person themselves cannot identify nor agree to by themselves...I'm thinking of Adam and Eve being naked but not being ashamed of that until their eyes were opened to their nakedness (not their eating) by their disobedience, that is, with the help of both GOD and the unwitting serpent.

It does not matter much to me what the mechanics are of our being born sinners, which I accept. As for guilt, knowledge of the law and that what you are doing is against the law upholds guilt even for the addicted and mentally insane (which is not a definition of their state, nor a diagnosis, but merely an anecdotal descriptor) in reference to a reasoning self aware person who does crime from an emotional need, like a psychopath.

If our sanity is at its epitome as innocents and choosing good, then the choice to become addicted to evil, the equivalent to self creating oneself as a sinner by their free will, could be called "insanity by free will choice to do the drug of ultimate evil" and then reaping the consequences.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

OK, definition given: here's the question.

The Problem of Evil is often considered to be a big obstacle to the Abrahamic idea of God; many consider it to be the one thing that disproves such a deity.

However, if DI is correct about 'scientific morality,' then there IS no evil. If there is none, how can it be a problem?

Seems like your question is built on a misunderstanding of the argument, Dianaiad. Secularists are not saying that there exists a problem of evil in the real world. Rather, they are saying that there exists a problem of evil in Christian dogma. That is to say that the Christian account of the world involves a contradiction. According to it, there exists an omnibenevolent creator, and yet everywhere around us we see morally inexplicable suffering that is designed by the said creator. In a secular world a tsunami is not evil, it's just a natural process that happens to be dangerous to people. On the other hand, in a theistic world a tsunami would be a manifestation of evil, as it is designed that way by a person for no morally justifiable reason.

But within religious definitions, the Christian concept of a good GOD and evil is not problem because evil was created by HIS creation against HIS plan by their free will. No problem. GOD is good, evil was created by someone else and free will was allowed as a necessity to ensure true love and pure holiness. Again, no problem.

The only religious problem with evil is in the concept that 'all is one' mysticism that our world is a manifestation of the spiritual, that we are God in an illusion of physicality. There is no good reason (that I've heard) for the spiritual godly essence to do what it is suggested this world means he did, especially creating evil from himself.

Taoism is a belief system in bare bones reality but without a deity nor a moral system, it does not seem to qualify as a religion.

Peace, Ted

[Wootah]

The problem with evolution is that you can't know whether one creature or another is best adapted to an environment. A mentally ill person may be better adapted than you think. This of course is absurd but I don't believe in evolution and so don't have to deal with such absurdities in my belief system.

Then there is the issue that there is no morality in evolution:

- Group consensus is not morality,
- Scientifically testing what hurts other beings is not morality.

Morality is part of philosophy. It is part of philosophy to the extent that we should think about it and we emerge from philosophy either as subjectivists or objectivists. Subjectivity however is absurd. If you believe in subjectivity then communication is impossible as what you subjectively believe, hear & say has no relation to anyone else.

If morality is objective then what makes it objective? It surely isn't objective like gravity is. We can't violate the laws of gravity. We can violate the laws of morality. So what kind of laws are moral laws?

One at least has to appeal to spirituality of some kind as a basis for objective morality - don't they?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 29 by Wootah]

One can't appeal to a being to escape subjectivity, by definition.

Why would anyone want to base their morality on evolution? Sure, it's a fact that morality comes from evolution (and some moral instincts are good rules of thumb) but that's no reason to base it on it.

While science doesn't ground morality, it certainly helps with practical ethics.