Natural Morality

>>1845952
>natural morality
It doesn't exist. The end.

Also:
>complaining that Ted talks try to push an agenda
Lmao that's literally the whole point of them.

>>1845973
>It doesn't exist. The end.
Yes it does

>complaining that Ted talks try to push an agenda
>Lmao that's literally the whole point of them.
Some ted talks are insightful.

Your mate and offspring are the only ones that matter.

>>1846040
untrue

>>1846130
prove me wrong

>>1846226
Evolution.
Morality serves as an evolutionary advantage. Consider the opposite, suicide, for example, can be an evolutionary advantage. If it exists as "Junk DNA" until it manifests itself in the right situation, then suicide can be very good for a society, such as when someone within the group is ostracized for bad behavior. It would benefit the group if that animal committed suicide. We see it happen in nature. Animals will get suicidal. People with depression, for example, put additional stress on their heart; in a historical setting, this would have meant a heart attack and death (See "Broken Heart Syndrome". Depression is the ultimate social disease. Today, we get depression for no reason. Back then, people only got depression because of being socially stigmatized. Japanese who dishonored their family would commit seppuku (ritual suicide); Europeans who had no honour would often kill themselves. Judas Iscariot hung himself (probably for betraying his people).

Morality is a social adaptation. It's a form of communication, just like language. All languages have their similarities. Morality is based on the relationships in our life, just as we conform to the linguistic standards of the people we grow up with. Objective morality (like the bible) is like using a dictionary to get your language. It's good that you understand the form, but the content of what is said depends on the relationship. An objective form of morality can never capture the extent of our relationships. When lions (which are a social cat) are raised in captivity, they can't integrate into a lion society, because there's a conflict of morals and language. The lion, for one, might like humans, whereas the wild lions probably want to kill them; the captive lion isn't raised with the proper body language. You need relationships to have morals, because morality is a form of communication.

>>1846285
I agree with you except for

>Objective morality (like the bible) is like using a dictionary to get your language

there is no absolute nor objective morality, they are all social constructs, which some probably come from natural traits and characteristics

>>1845973
>It doesn't exist
Yes it does you numbnut
What the fuck, how is this a point of debate?
People that are genetically geared to be moral tend to band together, not fucking murder each other and protect their territories more effectively than those who are vicious and disorganized, so they get to live and procreate more moral people. The end

>>1845952
Having a liberal agenda and pushing humanitarianism isn't an argument against a person being wrong. What was any of what he said incorrect or a bad example?

>>1846285
Are you implying that suicide is an evolutionary adaptation?

How would such an adaptation be beneficial for the person in question or his/her offspring? The group doesn't matter in this.

>>1847546
>assumes teleology

if they're not programmed to do it, why do they? there can be no normative standard for morality, it's relative m8

why would I disregard everything someone said because they said something flawed? Why can't you just consider individual ideas?

>>1850018
This is actually a huge issue today, especially on the internet. If someone does not color in all of the dotted lines you do then this means you have to plug your ears and reject them?