Why don't you ask a question that makes sense in context? Who cares that violence arises from nature? How is this relevant to my suggestion that it makes sense for violence by individuals to gain ends be considered immoral?
Let me just try to cut to the chase, because I'm getting impatient waiting for you to frame the usual argument: Which I'll summarize--if morals don't come from God then they are fallible.
ANS: yes, that is right, that's why having morals isn't like falling off a log, but requires a lot of educational and philosophical work, and probably won't be an incredibly rousing or thoroughgoing success regardless. How many times do creationists have to be told that the social consequences of a theory are not a valid measure of whether it is correct or not? You can't argue (persuasively) that morals must come from God, as otherwise, the're ignorable. Obviously, looking at history, they're pretty bleeding ignorable whether they come from God or not.
You're position seems to be that violence is wrong because we have evolved to the point were we have come to realize that it is not in our best interest. So why do people like Saddam Hussein prosper? You say he doesn't. Of course he does. Suppose he dies violently. What's the difference between dying violently or dying in a nursing home? Hussein has lived a life of wealth and comfort. He has had whatever woman he wanted in his terrority allowing him to pass on his genes in persumably the most desireable manner. He is the epitome of evolutionary theory.
Let me just try to cut to the chase, because I'm getting impatient waiting for you to frame the usual argument: Which I'll summarize--if morals don't come from God then they are fallible.
Why is that the usual argument? It's axiomatic that right and wrong exist. It should be axiomatic that God exists.
Obviously, looking at history, they're pretty bleeding ignorable whether they come from God or not.
That's very true.