[mtempm]

Despite academic/political/military/banking/corporate alignment against fundamental morals, "right" appears to be in agreement with nature/natural selection. The States had a more "right" society founded om constitutional and civil rights that was a big part of its climb from an English colony to the world power in less than 150 years after the constitution was written.

The reason people probably have strong convictions about right or wrong is most likely because of nature, not despite it. Groups that had this genetic trait built tribes, societies that had greater success in the long term.

In the short term, individuals, or even groups of individuals, can be successful by acting amorally, but this comes as a cost to their group's long term success--the cancer analogy.

Right now there is limited competition between groups in the world. Most of what we should be competing against is the coming extinction event when something else out there gets a whiff of all the artificial elctromagnetic radiation. Probably the reason we hear so little in the cosmos is because it is not a very competitive strategy.

[golergka]

> academic/political/military/banking/corporate alignment against fundamental morals

"fundamental morals"? What are those and where the hell do you get them from?

> The reason people probably have strong convictions about right or wrong is most likely because of nature, not despite it. Groups that had this genetic trait built tribes, societies that had greater success in the long term.

Actually, couldn't agree more. But people do have _different_ convictions about right or wrong.

[mtempm]

Re fundamental morals:

I would wager >95% of people agree on these. I've never met someone who didn't have an understanding of fundamental morals, except for a few people whom I consider to be a psychopaths.

I really would bet that most of us dont need an education to know that killing children for pleasure is wrong and disgusting. However, we might be split on whether spanking your children as punoshment is wrong. I think people understand the difference.

[golergka]

> I really would bet that most of us dont need an education to know that killing children for pleasure is wrong and disgusting.

Can I remind you that abortion is legal and funded by the state in most of the first world?

It's not that I have a personal opinion on the matter (I find it too complex to develop a definite opinion), but it does come pretty close to what you're describing.

[mtempm]

It's not. An egg moments After fertilization experiencing suffering requires quite a bit of inagination, while we all can agree a child can suffer. Where we draw the line between that is obviously somewhat up for debate (and no one in their right mind is saying we should kill born babies for pleasure).

[golergka]

You seem to be using subjective experiences and the ability to experience them as base for your moral system. Is it the case? Why?

[mtempm]

I dont believe for a second that let's say you did something you knew to be evil, such as kill a child for convenience, and were hypothetically asked about this in an after life: "why did you do it, you knew it was evil," that you'd be able to say honestly that you didn't actually know that.

As far as I am aware anything is possible, but suffering and happiness seem to be real.