Again, I think that is not a set of morals, but more of a hierarchy of authority and a set of instinctual “rules.”
And it was my contention is that a hierarchy of authority represents the RUDIMENTARY beginnings of the concept of morality. What part of “rudimentary” didn’t you understand?
I can’t give an example of a society that exists that way because I don’t think there IS one. That is my point. Man has morals. Humanistic evolution says he shouldn’t have a moral code or a conscience.
Then what makes you so sure that “humanistic evolution” requires a society without morals? Where does this idea even come from?
I sympathize with you, ThatGuy, I really do. Obviously you’ve been brought up all your life to think “Humanism is Evil; evolution is Evil”, without really trying to understand what either of them really is.
Perhaps Hitler often makes an appearance because he is such a good and well-known example of what happens when one follows out the idea of humanistic evolution out to its logical end.
Wrong! Where do you come up with this stuff?
Evolution would dictate that moral standards not evolve, not that they do evolve.
Wrong again. Once more, you’re making this assumption only because you’ve been taught all your life “if it involves evolution, it must be Evil.”
And no, I don’t think that “murder is wrong” is completely arbitrary. In my worldview, it fits perfectly. But hypothetically speaking, if I were to convert to atheism and commit myself wholeheartedly to humanistic evolution, I would see no “utility” in it at all: because it would prevent the propagation of only the best genes.
No you wouldn’t, That Guy! If you “converted” to humanistic evolution, you would try to understand it, and then you would see where your entire premise was off on the wrong track! That’s the only point I’ve been trying to make here, that contrary to your original assertion, we humanists do not “struggle” with morality at all! We see it as a natural part of our nature as Human beings!