re: Why would evolution lead us to a point where we kill babies so efficiently and of such #?

quote:

---

Evolution is a fact.


As defined and proven by who or what?

---

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

In the event that you decide that you want to learn, please ask your physician whether the flu virus evolves.

For more on human evolution, please see The Smithsonian's Human Origins Program.

Best regards.

quote:

---

Regardless of how one attempts to rationalize it, killing unborn innocent babies is evil.

---

Regardless of how one attempts to rationalize it, forced birth is evil.

quote:

---

forced birth is evil.

---

It looks like you misspelled retarded in your username...

I guess you feel that forced emancipation is evil as well.

Those slaves are your property, taking them against your will must be evil?

Or are you a full on anti-vaxxer who thinks there is sovereign citizenship over your body, if you can fit a hamster up your arse you can kill it.

quote:

---

Even outside religion and outside humans, you can see stable moral-like rules show up. Plenty of animals enforce clear boundaries around harming their own young, sick, or elderly members. Elephants protect calves and injured adults and will physically intervene if one of their own is being attacked. Wolves bring food to injured packmates instead of abandoning them. Dolphins will keep weak members afloat for hours. There are obviously countless examples.

These behaviours reinforce the well-being of the group which results in higher reproductive success so the existence of a value structure isn't anti-evolutionary.

If lower-order animals are capable of it then humans can obviously build much more explicit versions.

---

The problem is that you can’t get an “ought” from an “is”. Just because you can have a moral structure doesn’t mean you need to, especially when even the concept of survival is a desire rather than an objective moral imperative, even if most creatures desire it.

It’s not that morality is necessarily good or bad for survival, it’s that it doesn’t ultimately matter. Since there is no cosmic imperative to survive in the first place, then even survival can happen or not without necessary moral entanglements. And if survival is amoral, then how survival happens is also amoral.

Whether animals can or do have some sort of basic moral structure is irrelevant to whether they should, or if we should, because morality is whatever anyone wants it to be; it just depends on an individual or collectively agreed upon standard.

If pragmatism in support of species-level survival is the ultimate goal, you can achieve that in many ways. Killing off or enslaving the weakest may be the most efficient and desirable way to survive. Sex slavery may provide the quickest path to reproduction. Allowing those with the most desirable genes for intellect or physicality to have whatever they want (including sexual encounters with children; hunting people for sport; or torturing animals or humans for entertainment) so that those genes are ensured to carry on through reproduction may be a way a society chooses to govern itself, and such a path of governance cannot be wrong.

All this to say, that without God as an objective moral law-giver, there is no objective and binding moral law, and there is no ultimate or objective purpose or meaning to anything, so Nihlism should be the natural result. Morality is reduced to mere personal preference, and there is no basis for saying anything is truly good or evil, whether that be self-sacrifice of a “good” person as a good, or genocide of an entire weak or undesirable people group as an evil.