Where did morals come from?

[GePap]

Because you are unwilling to overcome your bias vis a vi the notion that moral principles could be built upon the notion of self-interest.

But I refer to my other post- you say equality is a principle- yes, it is: but just stating a principle is not saying why it is valid- you need to deconstruct- go ahead, do it, and we can then continue.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Fine. OK, why? Why is this good? Why is this better than not treating them all equal?

Because not treating all people equal will result in those will more power being treated better, and I see no reason why those will power should be treated better.

That is the issue: every "principle" you can name me is either to be assumed as utterly arbitrary, meaning there is no actual core for morals, or you have to deconstruct this statement down further.

No. It all comes down to your assumption. Is your assumption true or not.

What I am others are saying is that once you do that deconstruction, in the end you find the principle of survival is the base.

Principle of self-preservation? Why?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Because you are unwilling to overcome your bias vis a vi the notion that moral principles could be built upon the notion of self-interest.

You are only stating that I'm biased. You aren't giving me a reason why you think that. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I am unwilling to do so.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Because not treating all people equal will result in those will more power being treated better, and I see no reason why those will power should be treated better.

Fine, but then someone else could just as reasonably decide there is no reason why those who are powerless should be treated like those with power.

No. It all comes down to your assumption. Is your assumption true or not.

If the above is an example of what you call an assumption, then you have issues: for example, Equality is neither true nor false-and can never be either.

Principle of self-preservation? Why?

Because life is a system of self-replicating chemical processes. Death = the negation of life, the end of everything, hence also the end of meaning. So self-preservation is the basis of everything else, because if you die, all these questions are irrelevant.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Fine, but then someone else could just as reasonably decide there is no reason why those who are powerless should be treated like those with power.

Kindly state this reasonable reason.

No. It all comes down to your assumption. Is your assumption true or not.

If the above is an example of what you call an assumption, then you have issues: for example, Equality is neither true nor false-and can never be either.

Why? Sorry, but the burden is clearly on you at this point. Your claims are not common.

Because life is a system of self-replicating chemical processes. Death = the negation of life, the end of everything, hence also the end of meaning. So self-preservation is the basis of everything else, because if you die, all these questions are irrelevant.

Huh? If I die everything is irrelevent? This is your assumption?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Evolution is a physical process. And it is geological evolution - those geological features which continue or reproduce themselves, continue of reproduce. Volcanos don't. Precious few geological features do, in the very long run, but evolution by natural selection is true of any system, because it is a tautology.

Name some of these geological features that 'reproduce'.

You're saying is that things which exist, exist, and then claiming that this is proof that everything currently in existence has been somehow 'selected' to survive. Presumably if I grabbed a bead from a bag filled with identical beads and threw the bag into the fireplace, that counts as 'natural selection' in your book. Despite the bead not being able to reproduce, nor having any method of repeating its 'success'.

That's got nothing to do with biological evolution, which is about persistant traits, not space-time coordinates, or social change, which is a different thing again.

[Kuciwalker]

Name some of these geological features that 'reproduce'.

None of them, which is why they end up disappearing in the long run.

You're saying is that things which exist, exist, and then claiming that this is proof that everything currently in existence has been somehow 'selected' to survive. Presumably if I grabbed a bead from a bag filled with identical beads and threw the bag into the fireplace, that counts as 'natural selection' in your book. Despite the bead not being able to reproduce, nor having any method of repeating its 'success'.

Obviously, anything that exists, exists because its properties allowed its existance to begin or continue into this time. Applied to inheritable biological traits, this is the theory of evolution. It's tautological. The point being, that it's possible to draw a direct parallel between biological and social evolution.