[Diamond]

It seems to be an atavistic genetic memory that is common to all species of animalia: they tend to run away or fight in order to survive or prevail.

Are you saying that moral virtues are genetic, a random concatenation of atoms and molecules? Is the fundamental difference between Jesus of Nazareth and Adolf Hitler their genetic makeup? Well if that's the case, then what sense does praise or blame make?

Further, how does a mere description of genetic memory common to all species of animalia, by which they tend to run away or fight in order to survive or prevail explain morality or moral incumbency; i.e., what ought or ought not be done? Is there some moral obligation for a species to survive? How could that be, since there evolution has no purpose? And if there are moral obligations prior to evolution, then evolution itself can't be their source, and you are just presupposing what is supposed to be explained. Descriptions of animal behavior conditioned by the environment for survival can never account for the prescriptive nature of morality.

You stated in #126 that "morality exists..." And yet in #197 you stated to Texas Songwriter,

Now if we begin with a premise that murder is evil and that killing someone is murder, then it follows that murder is evil, but doesn't prove it because the premise is not based on objective truth. Objective evil requires that you demonstrate that there is an object that is evil by nature. No such object can be demonstrated.

If, as you say on one hand, there is no objective evil, then how can you say morality exists on the other? Isn't that a contradiction? Help me out here.

Cordially,

[kosta50]

Are you saying that moral virtues are genetic

No, moral virtues are learned. Morality is a product of human culture, not nature.

 Is there some moral obligation for a species to survive?

Apparently not, because it is common to all species of animalia, including man. Survival is a biological desire, not a moral obligation.

If, as you say on one hand, there is no objective evil, then how can you say morality exists on the other? Isn't that a contradiction?

There is no contraditiction. Morality exists as a social convention. That's why different cultures have different moral standards. For evil to be objective one would have to identify it as an object that is in itself evil, i.e. the Evil One.

We can say that an act is objectively evil (injurious, destructive, etc.) , but not that there is objective essential evil, unless you can produce the Evil One in person.