How is my interpretation backwards?:
"Once I had come to the conclusion above--that morality is not inherent..."Who said I'm atheist?
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said it:
"...and that God most likely did not exist..."
Where does the "wrong" come from if, God forbid, someone pokes you in the eye for no reason? If the pokee is really nothing more than mere epiphenomenon of matter in motion, as is the poker, so what? Are the neuro-chemical reactions in the brain of the somehow pokee more "valid" that the chemical reactions in the brain of the poker? How so? Are there good atoms and bad atoms?
Of course you object to being poked in the eye, but what is the moral basis for your objection? The chemical reactions in your brain dictate that you do not have the taste for being poked in the eye. The chemical reactions in the brain of poker, not being the same chemical reactions as in your brain, dictate a different personal preference, in this case, for poking you in the eye. Why would there be any expectation of physical reactions to do something other than what they do? Physical phenomena just are what they are. How do you justify your expectation that they ought to be something else?
I think every person can agree that if I poke that person in the eye for no reason I am doing wrong.
Is the source of morality agreement? What if the poker does not agree? Would that mean that there is no morality when there is disagreement?
Cordially,
That quotation is in regards to the Judeo-Christian morality expressed in the Bible, not my sense of morality, which as you see conflicted with this.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said it: "...and that God most likely did not exist..."
"This particular version of God probably does not exist." =/= "No supernatural being exists at all, period." I am agnostic.
Where does the "wrong" come from if, God forbid, someone pokes you in the eye for no reason?
It is innate. I know it is wrong. It is painful to me.
Do you only know certain things are wrong because the list was written down for you thousands of years ago? If so, you are a scary person! :-o
If the pokee is really nothing more than mere epiphenomenon of matter in motion, as is the poker, so what?
Because the pokee hurts. :-(
Are the neuro-chemical reactions in the brain of the somehow pokee more "valid" that the chemical reactions in the brain of the poker?
Nope, they are equally valid, as I explained before. Thus we can universalize and say no one should be poked in the eye, because no one wants to be poked in the eye.
Of course you object to being poked in the eye, but what is the moral basis for your objection?
It hurts. :-(
The chemical reactions in your brain dictate that you do not have the taste for being poked in the eye. The chemical reactions in the brain of poker, not being the same chemical reactions as in your brain, dictate a different personal preference, in this case, for poking you in the eye. Why would there be any expectation of physical reactions to do something other than what they do? Physical phenomena just are what they are. How do you justify your expectation that they ought to be something else?
I'm sorry, was there a point there??
Is the source of morality agreement?
In a sense yes, in a sense no. The agreement of the Nazis that they ought to exterminate the Jews did not justify the Holocaust. It was not a true agreement, since if you consulted the Nazis and asked how they would like to be imprisoned, starved, tortured, and experimented upon they would have said no thanks.
What if the poker does not agree?
Like the Nazis, they are out of line because they are placing a different standard of moral treatment upon others than they would place upon themselves, and there is no rational reason to do this and every rational reason not to.