[jwalsh07]

I wouldn’t call it a ‘moral absolute’ because you take that to mean that some bearded man in the sky told us not to. And that’s why you don’t rape children.

LOL, I like the imagery.

I would call it a universally human moral. No one would come out publicly to support child rape. Why? Because it is rejected by society. Why is it rejected by society? I think that’s clear.

No, it's not clear. In the materialist world run by determinism, there is no reason not to rape the children. You simply borrow the morality from the "bearded man in the sky" because you can explain why it is wrong to rape children. Nor can the rapist be held responsible for raping children because his actions were not his but simply a chain of causality since the beginning of time. A philopsophy clearly at odds with conservatism and individual responsibility by the way.

I don’t believe in moral absolutes which float around in the air and are always true in every single case at every point in time.

Your beliefs are your own but you are having a helluva time explaining why raping children is always wrong. Remember in the beginning of our discussion you agreed that raping children was always wrong, even when survival was at stake. Why?

I do believe that our history as a social animal has ingrained in our society a sense of respect and compassion which we use to define morals - collectively and universally in the sense that an astounding majority of individuals agree to the same basic moral code despite their religious creed.

Well, there you go. Society, Soviet Union style, decided killing millions to further the aims of the state was a moral act. Why were they wrong? Society, Khmer Rouge style, decided exactly the same thing. Their prime directive isn't the same as yours. What makes your society correct and theirs incorrect?

Religion does not dictate our morals.

Right, the "the bearded guy in the sky" does. Thou shalt not murder. Not hard to understand that command but incredibly hard for the atheistic determinist to both explain and hold accountable the murderers.

[UndauntedR]

In the materialist world run by determinism...

We know the determinism debate is a whole 'nother beast. My point of view is that even if everything is deterministic (hmm... even if it's not... everything is still cause-effect + chance), we still have to punish those who violate the human social code. Even if we are big stimuli-response machines, we at least have the illusion of freewill (personal responsibility) and still have social expectations of others. I have no problem with punishing someone who is "wired incorrectly" - acts in a way that is detrimental to society and violates our trust/expectations.

I've never seen the possibility of determinism as a big hurdle to any of these moral arguements.

You simply borrow the morality from the "bearded man in the sky"

I've always thought all religions borrowed their morality from us. It's very easy (easier?) to recognize morality outside of religion - so... all religion does is cement existing morals as "moral absolutes" in alot of minds... which would be beneficial to society and social critters...

If religion didn't exist... and I was the evolution of social memes/cognitive thinking... you'd have a hard time convincing me NOT to create it.

[betty boop]

Nor can the rapist be held responsible for raping children because his actions were not his but simply a chain of causality since the beginning of time. A philosophy clearly at odds with conservatism and individual responsibility by the way.

The above is most definitely the consequence of metaphysical naturalist a/k/a scientific materialist doctrine. If all that there is is merely matter in its motions according to the physical laws; if there is no soul, nor even a mind (because these are immaterial things) -- if all the mind is is an epiphenomenon of the brain's neural activity which, being an epiphenomenon is incapable of causing anything -- then how could anyone ever be responsible for anything? Where do we find room or root for moral questions?

UndauntedR does point to an interesting significant fact: that the moral law really does appear to be universal, since peoples of all times and cultures appear to know about it; and the form it takes is strikingly uniform cross-culturally and in all time periods. (C.S. Lewis ably demonstrates this insight in an appendix to The Abolition of Man IIRC.)

But such recognition actually undercuts UndauntedR's allegation that morality is whatever a human society declares it to be. Ultimately, morality is rooted in human nature, or human souls if you will (the existence of which some scientists deny), not in human societies. But only those societies are good and just which are constituted by individual human souls that follow the moral law.

Thanks for your great post, jwalsh07!