IAP Political Forum

As promised in the 'diabetic girl thread', I have created a new thread addressing the following question; How is morality justified within a purely physicalist world view?  Can it be justified? I foresee two likely 'yay' arguments that might be made;

1. Morality exists solely for the purpose of sustaining a society.  In this case, I interpret morals simply as a tool for upholding the authority of a government and/or religion. 

However, this ultimately means that the morals are arbitrary since they are contingent upon the survival of a particular culture.  Culture interprets morals and therefore culture trumps morality.  If the nazi government says killing Jews is ok, it is 'morally' permissible.  The Confederacy believed slavery to be ok.  Therefore it's ok. 

2. Morality is determined by the individual.  We each have our own thoughts about religion, abortion, euthanasia, etc.  But who am I to tell you what is right or wrong? People should make up their own minds, what is right for them.

In this case, there is no standard.  I can say that killing Ann Frank would be wrong for me, but I cannot say it was wrong for the nazi's to.


These are the two 'yay' arguments I can think of.  If there are others, I am happy to read them because I do not understand how morality can exist within a physicalist framework...

Well the version where morality is dictated to us by an authority in the sky (and not based on rationality) is hardly ideal either.

My explanation of morality goes somewhat like this: we are human beings. As human beings we have certain natural rights that we derive from the very fact of being human: among these are life, bodily integrity etc.  To transgress against these is to harm another, which is wrong by axiom (somewhat like the inherently fair "do unto others as you would have them do unto you").

Isn't to say that this particular 'transgression' is 'wrong' assigning to it a value judgment that you are imposing on me?


In a world outside moral absolutes, Warr is closer to right than you.

Why is it axiomatic? This has been my question all along.  We are in agreement that morality exists and is important.  However, 'Do unto others...' is not an axiom of materialism.  Here are the axioms:

1. There is no God or any other metaphysical being.

2. There is only the material world.

................

Conclusion: Morality is consistent within a physicalist framework.


I want to know how these axioms cohere with the conclusion.  How do you fill in the blank?

Immanual Kant supplies the most famous and best known example of a 'God-free' system of morality.

I'm a rough-tough guy.  I like fighting.  It is my pleasure to fight.

According to the "do unto others rule", I ought to go around punching people in the face since that's exactly what I want you to try to do to me.  It keeps me on my toes and in practice, so please, take your best shot.  And I'll just punch random people in the face...

Alternatively, I'm a total sex maniac - I love sex with anyone or anything.  Since I'd like nothing more than having people come up to me and make lewd sexual suggestions, then it follows that I ought to go around making lewd sexual suggestions to every person I meet on the street.
 

Filling in the blanks is easy, though you are missing an 'axiom' for morality.

The tough part is defending your arbitrary axioms that you begin with.  Both statements are famously unprovable.

But there is no God.  And there is a material world.

You can say whatever about proof, those are reality. 

God has never been seen in the sense of consistent, verifiable, sustainable evidence.  Does not exist.

The material world does.

In your own personal and subjective reality only.  Nothing personal, but your own subjectivity is an unreliable gage.

Absence of evidence is not substantial proof of anything.  Perhaps you are not looking the right places.

This is no more logically provable than God's non-existence. 

I'm afraid you guys are off topic.  Assume (regardless of personal opinions) that the two axioms I offered are true, since they are the definition of materialism.  I am curious as to how morality can be justified within a materialist world view.  For the moment, it doesn't matter if we can prove God or not. Assuming God does not exist, can we justify morality?

It is difficult to agree on a true definition of morality.

My opinion is very radical and almost always it's either hated or scoffed at..

I think we human are more instinctual than we want to admit. I even believe that our own reasoning derives purely from instinct. I think morality is "not restraining your instinct while keeping your self-control".
Yes I know, It's an ambigous and paradoxical concept, but in a way it's a matter of acting uppon one's feeling without letting them turn us into animals.

Morality is an exclusively human condition because we are able rationalize our instincts. That lets us control them but that also tempts us to supress them.

So in other words, morality for me is the "the ability we have to manipulate our instintcs and emotions" 

As I noted in the 5th post in this thread, Immanual Kant supplies the most famous and best known example of a 'God-free' ethical system.

Here's the thing about axioms - they are unprovable assumptions that any reasonable person will hold to be true. I don't intend to try and prove it: everyone accepts that it is true. Although...maybe you'd accept this. I don't like being harmed, therefore I consider it immoral for someone to harm me. In order to be logically consistent I must also apply this to everyone else.

BTW, even absolutist theist morality is based on axioms (namely that if God declares something moral then it is moral.)

Masterkoki, that's a very interesting post.

No kidding.  :)

As I said, very interesting.  However, being the cynic that I am, I'd suggest that morality is rather more like "the ability we have as humans to manipulate the instincts and emotions of other human beings".

While the 'impluse' (or impetus or capacity) for morality may be considered innate for human beings, the 'content' of morality certainly seems to be taught (or imposed from outside the self).

I think there are reasonable objections to human rights depending on the definition of the word reasonable. But I agree that one can create morals.

Kant is an example of the 2nd type of subjective morality covered in the opening post. But I don't agree with it's dismissal.

I don't think morality has non-consensual authority, but that's not to say it doesn't matter. Condemnation of immorality (as one sees it) can go further than finger waggling. Without god, humans are the final arbitrators good conduct.

Kant's system cannot rationally be described or dismissed as 'subjective'. 

If you want an entirely subjective (God-free) moral system, Nietzsche is the grand master of that game.

Categorical imperatives being objective would mean that all rational people would independently arrive at the same duties or agree on what duties exist. I do not think this is the case.

The idea of morality purely as behavior modification is interesting, that is the only observable effect I can think of. I think moral imperialism is more like influencing someone to work on their own instincts than direct manipulation, but people have morals like those they associate with so the difference might not matter, if I understand the way you are looking at things.

The categorical imperative is an interesting idea.  However I am skeptical of it.

1. As I interpret it, Kant argues that an objective morality can be obtained with pure reason.  While morality can be explained rationally, we do not use reason initially to determine our morality.  Kant uses post-rationalization.

I would argue an initial reaction is purely instinctual, not carefully, logically weighed.  Consider a benevolent persons' reaction to the Darfur genocide.  Chances are they do not believe it to be wrong because of the 'do unto others' rule.  They believe it to be wrong because it is wrong, because it makes one sick to think about it.  In this case, disgust precedes rationale.

Kant has the order exactly reversed.  My morality is generally characterized by my reaction, not my reasoning.  I see someone in pain and I want to help them because they are in pain.  I could see applying the categorical imperative in cases where the ‘right’ thing to do is obscure; the war in Iraq for instance.  Otherwise, it is little more than a formula for western culture's basic morality.


2.  Kant was a theist. The categorical imperative is not a materialist philosophy. How are you applying it to materialism? How does this justify a morality?


I am finally taking a class on Nietzsche this quarter! I will be reading 'Beyond Good & Evil' within the next week and a half and will probably reference it here.  I think that an entirely subjective approach is the only reasonable one given my axioms.  What does Nietzsche say?

I think there are some morals that transcend religion or government.

Life, no matter the person, has a right to live. Crimes are punishable, but life is not something that ANY entity has the right to own. This is why, dispite my atheism, I am both "Right to Life" and "anti-Death Penalty". Life is not something that anyone should have a right to take away, even in retribution.

In defense of your own life, it's fine, but murder and capital punishment are, in my opinion, equally barbaric.

Aside from an individual's right to life, morality, like the OP said, is generally an arbitrary interpretation set up by some ruling institution.

Suicide, for instance, should not be a "sin". It's an individual's right to do with his life as s/he chooses... but if serfs starting killing themselves to get to Heaven, there would be no workforce... so the Catholics said you would go to Hell if you did it.

Let's twist this a little bit... We've heard a lot about morality... What is "Immoral"? 'Cause it certainly isn't the opposite of what has been said...  :-\

I think what is IMMORAL is truely dependent on the orginization in charge, like the OP was saying about morality.

Murder is the only thing I can consider to be immoral... everything else is a matter of circumstance.

That is quite the blank check and I just can't get my hands around it. Stealing, lying, cheating, drugs, racism, hate...all can be OK given the right 'circumstances?'

Furthermore you could also make a case for murder as circumstancially non-immoral. Defining particular actions do not nessicarilly make something immoral, it is only one aspect.
---------------

If we are going to propose a morality without God then we must make asumptions about what defines morality on a deeper level. I will propose that it should be evolutionary as we are indeed talking about evolved animals. Evolutionary forces have determined what is the proper philosophical basis for behavior so as to create a successful species. Evolution gives us basic positive norms which help us survive as a species. It does not provide the 'ideal' as evolutionary processes have a lagging effect because it selects on the basis of genetics.


Similarly we can make attempts at an 'ideal' on a cultural level by selecting the norms and cultural ideas that best suit our humanity.

Evolution is a very bad basis for morality (it is survival of the fittest).

The things you mention are minor and, given particular circumstances, could be justified.

If your poor and you steal food, is it the same? If you lie to save yourself, is it the same? Drugs are a matter of choice, and aside from offending some diety, I fail to see why they are universally immoral (unless you harm someone while under the ifluence of them, in which case it was your choice to take them so it was your fault to begin with... not the drugs).

"Hate", I guess, is a broad act of immorality. Maybe prejudice in general could be immoral, while murder is a specific form of prejudice. So I guess the truely universal act of immorality is "prejudice".

I would not call adultery minor. Have you ever known someone whose family was destroyed because of it? Ever seen the effects on the kids? Have you ever seen drugs destroy the lives of individuals...both the user and the family? Both are not 'victimless transgressions.' Both are selfish AND immoral.

Our society would not function without moral absolutes.

In this century? Yeah... quite often, actually.

But adultory was acceptable in past centuries, especially among royalty, and while we may personally bulk at those who do commit it, it's largely a personal issue... not a universal one. Basically, in this day and age most groups condemn it... but some don't.

And then there is the question of polygamy. Is it adultory? If so, why do Mormons find it as acceptable? Is it because morality is subject to interpretation based on the group?

Yes... I do believe that is the point I've been trying to make...


But the it was a personal choice to take them in the first place and NOT seek propper treatment. It's a matter of bad judgement, not immorality.


And if life were always respected and prejudice prohibited, I imagine we'd all get along just fine.

I'm only trying to define what is truely universally moral and immoral. Everything else is generally due to the interference of particular groups who gain control - but basically, morality (the way *I* see "morality"), can exist without God or any other overbearing orginization.

Indeed, a very good point.

I might venture to say that you have described the real reason why we have moral absolutes in the first place. 

Many certainly do believe them to be necessary to the functioning of society.  They have always been a majority.

Murder is by definition, 'illegal' killing of human beings.  Our society acknowledges and legally permits several categories of 'legal' killing of human beings.

Ergo, "murder" is a matter of circumstance.  In some circumstances, killing human beings is quite legal and in many cases, held to be moral too.

Sure...break into my house...threaten my wife and daughter....and you will be greeted with a 0.50 cal hole dead center mass that leaves an exit wound the size of a medium pizza.

Completely legal premeditated murder...

Here are some quotes from Nietzsche:


IOW, according to Nietzsche, morality is used to uphold a culture.  This is best demonstrated on the battle field by soldiers who risk their lives for their country or their families, etc... It just so happens that most (if not all) cultures benefit more from the sanctity of life rather than apathy towards it.  Life is sacred because culture says so, not because it has inherent value.  Do you agree?

Iamme makes a good point, that we cannot fashion individual morality on evolution (i.e. survival of the fittest). However, this would apply to cultures. 

My point was not to say that we should act as "good little Darwinists", in fact that would likley lead to more Social Darwinism. My attempt was to explain that what morality, and immorality, we have are PRODUCTS of evolution. The fact that we feel bad when we see people or animals suffer is a product of evolution. Somehow morality has indeed survived either because it is benificial to society or as an accidental outgrowth of it.

It is evolutionarily a good thing that we do not wantonly murder each other, the basic instinct which makes us moral is deep within our genes and we are making attempts on this forum to discover just what that is.

However those same genes that make us good parents and moral people also instil a sense of xenophobia and the ability to commit horrible injustices. We have exactly the morality, and immorality that evolved primates would have. We are helpfull and moral to those within our group and dangerously violent to those outside of our groups.

Not neccesarily. It's just the legal concept of murder actually alllys with immorality - even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The one thing we have to ourselves in this world is our life. Take that and you've committed more than a crime against the victim, but also the universe.

According to Nietzsche, morality serves many purposes, of which, that is one.

Always be careful with Nietzsche - especially if you are new to him.  Nietzsche is very complex and if you think you understood what he meant the first time you read him, you are probably mistaken.

Reading Nietzsche is like peeling layers off an onion.  Read the same passage twice and you may have a different interpretation the 2nd time.

Absolutely.  Though I'm not sure if Nietzsche would agree with that.

Yes we can.  Many do this all the time.  Fact is, it doesn't work very well.

I haven't a clue what you mean by this.

Some do, mostly those who do not fully understand science. I mean, even ultra-Darwinist Richard Dawkins says that evolution is a terrible basis for morality.

Just cause the state also says murder is immoral doesn't mean it's a case of an orginization dictating right and wrong.

Murder is still immoral. It's just the state also agrees.

The only moral absolute is that it is absolutely wrong to cause unnecessary* harm to another. Any other moral absolutes lead to the situation where the action that will cause the least harm or provide the most benefit is a priori immoral because it violates some absolute moral principle.

*_{Necessary means where no causing harm would allow a greater harm to occur.}

Sorry, this one isn't absolute, even with your caveat.

Spanking, capital punishment and war easily violate this rule.

Spanking: wrong
Capital punishment: wrong
War: wrong except in very limited circumstances.

These sound to me like arbitrary subjective assertions of personal opinion.

This is not only an arbitrary subjective assertion, it is also wishy-washy and imprecise.  Traditional moral systems don't admit of 'gray' areas.  Gray areas are subjective by definition.

Your answers appear more like replies to a survey of personal opinons rather than replies to a philosophic argument.  (I'm not trying to denigrate you, only trying to move the discussion towards something that can be discussed besides arbitary subjective assertions).

Even at that, I think we are diverging from the initial subject.  The intent is to justify a material morality.  We have briefly discussed Kant (whom we kind of just skimmed over), and now Nietzsche.  I will continue to look for additional Nietzsche quotes in my reading (and I would appreciate your input on Nietzsche also, Dormouse).

We still have not explained how morality coheres with a material world view.  More specifically, we have not justified life as sacred, the begging axiom.  Since, as Iamme pointed out that natural selection is a poor base for morality, where do we get it from?  Do we really believe the survival of a culture supersedes human life?

Why is spanking wrong?

It is assault. Children have a right to bodily integrity too.

We are not discussing those issues, I thought it was best simply to point out that your examples were not clearcut.

'Life' and 'sacred' are difficult concepts to accurately define (this is the whole stem-cell, abortion, IVF etc. debate). I prefer simply to say that it is wrong to cause harm - I don't think anyone could disagree with that axiom.

Well there are some spankings that feel sooooo right  ;)

But seriously I think spaking is a behavioral modificator. Not necessarily "wrong" but very commonly abused in my opinion

You have got to be kidding me. Assault?

How many insects, let alone microbacterial agents, did you kill today?

According to your theory, that's inflicting harm and therefore morally wrong.

(Please note that I can and will keep up this kind of argument for pages, showing the flaw in every attempt you may make to assert the existence or validity of any universal moral law - I've been through this argument many time on internet forums.)

I tend not to kill insects if I can avoid it. Not killing microbes would lead to a greater harm (disease) and hence is not immoral. Also, in both cases, the beings are not self-aware, hence the harm inflicted is minimal/

And I don't mind how long this goes on for. You will not win by wearing me down.

I see no reason to.  Your statement is sufficient.

You may not agree that your words confirm my point, but they do.  Your defintion of 'harm' is arbitrary and entirely subjective.

Sorry, I'm not particularly helpful because I do not support your goal.  From my perspective, the only thing more dangerous than some 'god-centered' moral system is some 'human-centered' moral system.

Morality just seems damn ugly all around - a game for charletans, mystics and authoritarians (with lots and lots of hypocrisy).

I'm with Nietzsche in so far as we are living 'beyond good and evil' now.  God is dead (humans killed him).  Since morality is defined by God, morality is dead as well.

That is to say, I don't see much benefit, purpose or advantage in seeking 'God-free' morality, since it will likely only produce the same monsterous violence, sanctimonious posturing, rampant hypocrisy and social-political unrest as 'God-driven' morality has always given us.

It doesn't.  Morality is a function of God.  God is immaterial.  Ergo, God-morality doesn't 'cohere' with a material world view.

Indeed.  Perhaps this is because it isn't actually sacred? 

Holding life to be sacred seems to be a 'polite fiction' of humans. Humans rarely actually adhere to this in reality (as Iamme's attempts to dodge my examples show).

We get 'natural selection' from nature.

And most existing moral systems do hold that the survival of 'their' culture supercedes human life as a whole.  Christianity famously celebrates and looks forward to the end of the world as a religious goal.

This whole conversation sounds like a convoluted mess. That is to be expected when one pulls the idea of a higher power off the table. All of the sudden, everything is arbitrary...like saying our moral code is a result of evolution?

What is that? Is there a lick of science that backs that up?


This is my favorite. If spanking is 'wrong', where does abortion fit on that line?

You are asking for a scientific reference for asserting that there are no universal moral systems?

Um... okay.  That's just odd on a couple of levels, not the least of which is the request to prove a negative, but also the appeal to science is rather strange given that this is a discussion of philosophy.

I'll just make a couple of points.

1. The moral systems used on this planet right now have NOTHING to do with evolution.  The Judeo-Christian moral system is about 2500 years old - that's when it was created. 

2. Yes, it is a convoluted mess.  Humans are messy creatures.  Postulating a higher power just for the purpose of endowing humans with some noble purpose and to make it all look orderly is the very definition of arbitary.  Jehovah, Allah or the Flying Spagetti Monster, take your pick.

Created by whom, and for what purpose? Why did the previous code need to change? When will the next moral code go into effect?

I don't know.  Why don't you ask some Judeo-Christian what the docrine for that question is.

I think the Greco-Roman moral system was hunted down and exterminated by Judeo-Christians during the early centuries of Christian rule.

As for the "next one" it is already fully in effect now.  It is generally called moral relativism.

What mechanism is used for one moral system to supplant another is unknown to me.  All I know is the result.

Well, since I haven't defined harm, I don't see where you are getting that from and, to be honest, I don't feel like following your train of thought down the intellectual and moral abyss.

It seems to me, your argument can be reduced to the following:

1. Moral questions are hard.
2. God provided easy answers.
3. God is not real.
C. Morality doesn't exist.

To reiterate my moral system: It is based on the premise that causing harm is wrong. Actions that cause harm are immoral, unless a greater harm is caused by not performing the action.

That's moronically simplistic, wrong and nothing even close to what I've said.

It seems to me that you have given up trying to have a civil discussion and have decided that since you haven't gotten your own way, you ought to just denigrate and insult me instead.  No surprise there, this is a very common reaction from those who have never studied philosophy but presume to lecture people about it.

I do not discuss philosophy (or any other issue) with people who's arguments turn entirely into ad hominems as soon as they are challenged.

Excellent comments

Welcome to P&R. May I take your coat?

The only thing more annoying than insults from posters is ridicule from moderators/admins for objecting to it.

The spirit of John L. seems to rule this forum.

I think he was joking Dormouse.

No, I insulted your arguments. Big difference (you should know this being a philosopher).


Oh wow. The old argument from "I studied philosophy therefore I am the only one qualified to think". Excuse me while I laugh at this self-important elitist nonsense.


Yeah, whatever. You haven't actually offered any challenge to my arguments, other than the vague assertion that I am being "arbitrary".

Abortion is a complex and difficult issue. I wouldn't attempt to answer it comprehensively here. Personally, I think that if the fetus is not self-aware and not capable of feeling pain or suffering through the abortion then it is OK, since no harm is being done.

But like I said, abortion is a complex issue and religions only muddy the waters (by declaring dogmatically that life being at conception and that is that).

Um, I was actually making a joke about how uncivil this part of the forum can get - I agree with you.

Actually, religion clears the water. Human intervention has made it an arbitrary 'procedure.'


'Self-aware' and 'pain' are now the qualifiers? I have a co-worker who had a premature baby at birth...a pound and change. I think we can all agree that it will be months before that child is 'self-aware', so we are in the green zone there.

Would it be wrong to run an agent to stop the heart into the IV (painless) and allow them to try again with a baby that will make it to full term?

Then we run into the sticky situation of Terri Schiavo. Her feeding tube was removed and must have certainly caused pain as she starved to death.

The questions are really quite simple.

It reminds me of the time Al Gore was asked if it would be OK for our penal system to execute a pregnant woman. He was stuck because he KNEW what the right answer was, but couldn't say it for offending the pro-abortion crowd, so he dodged. His house was built on shifting sand...

Using "self aware" and "pain" as qualifiers means those in comas....whether traumatic, chemical or pathologic are subject to extermination.

Absolutely. Great point.

My apologies.

I'm extremely attentive to this particular issue - particularly at this forum where it has been a big issue in the past.

The civility of mods/admins sets the tone for the whole forum.

Speaking of nonsense, once again, you misrepresent my words.  I said no such thing.

For all intents and purposes, you may expect to be ignored by me, although your slander will be refuted.

What do you think my goal or objective is? I will agree with you that human-centered moral system is too objective and is riddled with hypocrisy.


Where does this leave us? Are you suggesting anarchy? or simply a risk that no one likes but we all have to suck it up and deal with?


You are begging the question.  This is precisely the contradiction I am pointing out.  I am asking a materialist to demonstrate how it is not a contradiction or acknowledge it as one.


I fervently disagree.  The right to life (except with regard to abortion) and freedom is the fundamental moral ideal of western culture, is it not?


I was asking where we get morality from if not from natural selection...


Kind of... its still a personal choice to go off to war or to sacrifice your life; it is not mandated by the culture.  I think civilization just happens to benefit from this coincidence.

Yeah, I joke so I won't smash my computer. No biggie.

Sorry, I've been making a few different arguments in this thread vis-a-vis other posters so that perhaps is the reason for my confusion regarding your essential position on the thread topic. 

Multi-tasking of several philosophy arguments in a single thread can be tricky when I'm not familiar with the basic philosophic position/outlook/ideology of the various posters involved.  :)

That being said, in the last paragraph of the OP you stated:

On page 3 of this thread you stated:
Note: bolded part (my emphasis).

Hence, I'm not sure if you taking the pro-materialist position as an advocate, devil's advocate or critic - or perhaps just as one who is interested in the topic itself for exploration?  You do seem to be taking an 'advocacy' position, hence my rejection of your 'presumed' goal that you may, or may not have. :)

As for my general position, if I have to choose between a dichotomy of a 'theist-centered' moral system and a 'materialist-centered' moral system, I'd definitely vote for the latter - but only under those (polar) conditions. Ultimately, I prefer neither, or perhaps just a mix-mash of both. 

The latter, definitely.  And that's a rather good way of putting it too!  :)

Echoing Aristotle's famous dictum that 'man is a political animal' (also translated as 'man is a social animal') - Nietzsche said 'man is a moral animal' - and he is indeed quite right.

Humans do apparently love morality, or at least to be seen or thought of as morally good, or to cite good morals as justification for their acts.  This is a very strong passion that is much in evidence throughout human history to the present day.   

But I see no evidence that theism is the only 'true' or 'proper' (or unique) source of actual moral 'rules'.  Theism certainly has been the most dominant cited source throughout most of the last two thousand years or so, but that doesn't 'prove' anything other than the fact that 'theism' is generally quite popular.

By the same token, I'm well aware that several brilliant philosophers have explored the very question of establishing the basis of a moral system - one without the direct involvement of a God (Kant and Nietzsche being the most notable, but not unique examples).  I personally don't like the results or ramifications of either of these enterprises (but I understand both of them to be mostly moral and rationally functional on a theoretical basis).

So where this all leaves us probably requires more words than I can type here in this post.  :)

Begging the question?  The question begs that answer.  :)

God-defined morality doesn't hold with materialist-morality by definition.  They are contradictory.  All materialists must reject God-based morality as a sham.  Ergo, your question begs that answer. 

Indeed, your whole question turns on the uniqueness and 'truth' status of God-defined morality.  If that is 'real' then everything else is just silly.  If you reject, or set aside, the God-defined unique 'truth' of morality, then all moralities become theoretically possible (or nonexistent).  The only contradiction here is between 'god' or 'no-god'.  If you grant one, then the other is a contradiction.

In other words, if you hold that a particular God is the only one true source or judge or goal of morality, then that's your answer.

If you hold that morality may have alternative sources of origin than God-given decree, then that's your answer.

It is a political posture certainly.  And it is a popular conception, I'll grant that too. 

But its not very real.  The right to life doesn't really exist.  It is a 'polite fiction' like most other things considered 'rights'.  You have these 'rights' until the government chooses to deny them (or your fellow citizens choose to do so).  Thus, 'rights' do exist, just that I know of no 'right' that is inviolate, and thus, 'rights' are no different than any other law or statute we make.  We try to follow them as rules, and 'we as a whole' usually do, but we generally also make lots of excuses for the exceptions we permit.

Capital punishment, vigilante justice and legal war are all clear examples of the 'right to life' being routinely denied - with duly acknowledged 'moral' rules invoked to support these violations of the 'right to life'.

And one need hardly point out that this 'right to life' applies only to humans and most specifically does not apply to any other lifeform that can almost be killed at will (and held to be 'morally correct').

Slight confusion of terms here.  Humans perhaps get their passion for 'morality' from natural selection.  I'd not dispute that (I'm with Nietzsche - man is a moral animal).  But this is only the 'impetus' for having morality.

However, it is the 'rules' or 'content' of the morality that is in question here, and that comes from human artifice, society,  culture and your parents.

No, not necessarily mandated these days (though it most certainly used to be).  But the choice is presented and made available and social reinforcements are used to encourage you - certainly money is not the prime motivator here.

And civilization most certainly does not necessarily benefit from the actuality war (indeed, it is probably quite rare).  Civilization does perhaps benefit from our human passion and planning for war, that I'll accept, but not the actuality of war - that's just too destructive and murderous to be considered essentially good.

Religion simplifies the issue by dogmatically adding a soul to the situation. The issue is not simple. In reality, an embryo is just a ball of cells and it makes no sense to declare that its rights supercede those of the woman, especially in case of rape, incest etc. It is unclear at this point in thime when exactly an unborn fetus may be considered fully human, but stating that that point comes at conception is just as arbitrary as any other.

It's up to you. You have not offered any challenge to anything I said except the vague assertion that I am being arbitrary and whining about my insulting you.

BTW, how else ma I meant to interpret "presume to lecture people about it" other than that I am not qualified to lecture people about it (and presumably that you are).

Yes, and I've stated my intention to ignore you.  I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon.  Leopards don't change spots very often.

Precisely the way I stated it.

It is my experience on internet forums that those who are least educated in philosophy are the ones most likely to lecture about it.

The statement is self-explanatory and requires no presumptions about anything and makes no claim about myself in any way, shape or form, other than the fact that I have observed this phenomena many times.  You are only the latest example.

Note: I am only posting in reply to you in order defend myself from your slanders, as I said I would.

Please address points in the debate and refrain from personal attacks.

Please refresh your understanding of the "Forum Civility" announcement at the top of the page.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.