args

There are universal, objective moral values

Thanks for accepting. First let me define some of my terms, I think you might have been using different definitions. When I said "objective" I meant "not based on someone's opinions", I didn't mean a purpose or goal. And when I said "values", I didn't mean "a numerical amount (or the verbal equivalent)", I meant "worthwhile", "valuable", etc. Now first you contend our morality was necessary for our survival, which I would agree that was indeed the result. But that doesn't mean it was worthwhile, or that it was objectively supposed to happen. That doesn't mean that it was correct. I would ask how persistent social groups of humans (or any living thing) is morally correct? It's only valuable to those particular consciousnesses, and only while they are experiencing it. Later you basically state that something is moral if it affects the positive feedback of living things. Again, this is not only subjective, but literally impossible to achieve universally. The amount of living things that have had to die in order for me to live is innumerable. Mathematically speaking, life is detrimental to it's own happiness, therefore, according to your definition of morality, life is amoral. You then go on to say that "life's unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of positive-feedback" is not a man-made idea, instead it's part of the physical laws of nature. Nothing has a right to life, there are infinite amounts of lives that don't exist. Did they choose to waive their rights? And as for the living, our right to do so is completely alienable. With sufficient power, which isn't much, anyone could choose to kill someone else. What happened to the unalienable rights of my food? Or the rights of murder victims? And as a matter of fact, all but a tiny percentage of everything that has ever lived was alienated from their "rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". And I think it's safe to say that the rest will lose their rights as well. The famous quote was used as a basis of government mentality. The rights only exist as long as the government can enforce their laws. On to God. It seems like you basically restated my thoughts on God's morality. It's still "someone's" opinion. It just so happens that this individual's opinion is enforced with absolute power. A deity with less power than omnipotence can hardly be called a god. Therefore since the original creator of everything is all-powerful, everything he wills is "good". That means there's no such thing as bad. Morality loses all meaning. For instance, to say that me murdering someone is wrong is to say that God's will is incorrect because nothing happens if it were not for God allowing it. So again, how can you say whether anything is right or wrong? There is plenty of evidence that the ecosystems of earth would be more suited to foster life if humans weren't part of it. And this logic can be followed through with the fact that countless lives must be lost in order for a single one to persist, therefore the idea that morality is things that mutually benefit life leads me to ultimately believe that all life on this planet is "wrong". But again, thankfully, that idea is only our flawed, biased, and selfish opinion. Finally I'd like to repose my question. Why should the well being of others matter to me? If I had the power to set everything and every one up as a support structure for my own happiness, on what logic would that be "wrong" or "incorrect" or "amoral"?