THE VERY BIG QUESTION OF MORALITY

[FlightoftheCosmicHippo]

Hi,
I've been reading your discussion and there's many differences not just the one. You see theres more than one kind of murderer out their.So to say all murderers don't respect/accept that all people are individuals & deserve the right to (self-preservation) is not true.

You see the degrees of a murderer very from being a psycho path to being calculating & percise when killing someone.Or it could just be dumb luck cause you were drinking when you hit someone & and that makes you a cold-blooded killer too.

And the worst of all are the ones we train to be the perfect killing machine. Are trained not to feel bad about doing it & that it's not wrong cause it's for the greater good. Please don't get me wrong I do believe in (self-preservation)but I also believe that at one point in everyones lives they've thought out how to get rid off someone in thier lifes.That they thought the world wouldn't miss.

So in some cases we all have a little bit of a killer in use, it's just wheather or not we act on it. As for morals your righ there all subject to whats happening at the time.Believe me everything has two sides to it,I spent my life trying to live in balance it sucks being a libra.Hope I didn't drag it out to far.

[manlian]

As far as morality being subjective, I would agree that it is.

The whole subjectivity debate raises the old conundrum of morality only being objective if there exists a moral arbiter that transcends our own varied individual and cultural predilections for morality - a kind of 'universal yardstick' for good action.

Obviously God fulfills this role for many people, though there are also secular philosophies that advocate objective morality.

[SubmissMe]

[manlian]

[Jack]

SubmissMe: We are saying the same thing in somewhat different ways. Discussion around the subject of morality are essentially good in that they question things which normally go unquestioned, and are mostly valid indicators of whether or not individuals will interact well(and in so doing form cohesive groups[societies]).

To me, the statements "God exists.", and "There is no God." mean the same thing. Since everything comes from God, morals come from God. The reason morals differ is because groups/people have different views of God, and different people are at different mental/biological levels.

Most(if not all) morals exist to protect the things we treasure. Ex: To most people it is immoral to sleep with a person that involved in a relationship that is not with you if that individuals relationship is exclusive.


FlightoftheCosmicHippo: A murderer is someone who intentionally performs an action that results in the taking of the life of an individual without that individuals expressed permission or without the action being in defense of their own life or someone elses. Under this definition, the person who gets drunk and then gets behind the wheel of an automobile or gets into a fight and ends up killing someone is a murderer. A person is not a murder who steps out of a door and ends up knocking someone into the street on accident and the individual who gets knocked into the street dies as the result. The difference is in the intent.

Make no mistake, we are all animals. There are two sets of laws(morals, whatever): the law of the jungle, and the law of society. The law of society takes precedence because it's on a higher evolutionary level than the law of the jungle, but when people do not follow the law of society they must be responded to from the law of the jungle(hence the death sentence).

manlian: Even desks need cognitive interpretations. I think what you meant to say is that morals do not exist in any objective sense(as in there is no physical item which can be pointed to as an example of a "moral").

edited to remove displays of insanity.

[manlian]

[FlightoftheCosmicHippo]

Jack:I agree with you there are two sets of laws (society and jungle).And yes society does take precedence cause it's a higher level then the jungle.But sometimes thats a bad thing that societys law is such a higher evolutionary level.Example the death penalty,law of the jungle put you on death row a good thing cause you counldn't follow societies law.Ok now instead of putting you to death, societies laws keep you thier for years & years before it's ever used.That is enless you live in Texas.

Question,you say morals come from God & the reason morals differ is cause of people/groups veiws of god differ.Ok I get that God/Morals it's said that if you commit suicide you will not goto to heaven,ok.So why would people that believe in God allow a law to be passed allowing one man to help another man kill himself.Didn't God say thou shoult not kill.

Morally it's an immoral situation woundn't you say.

[FlightoftheCosmicHippo]

SubmissMe:I don't know if God exists personally & some of the reading I've done lately doesn't help to convince me either.Why would God take soil(which she didn't won't to give) from mother earth to make man.If he's the creature why would he have needed the soil.

It's said he created a couple of woman before getting it right with eve.It's also been said that the garden of eden was not entirely earthly.And when he sent them away from eden it was to earth.So if God truely exists I'm starting to get the impression that he had no master plan in thought when he created life.Cause they weren't created at frist to live on earth,that was an after thought.

Come to think of it adam could have been the 2nd or 3rd try before he got it write.This could be his 2nr time around with making mankind.They've found ice patches or deposit in varise places on mars along with canal ways.So what's to say he didn't making life thier first.Hey just a thought.

Myself I'm a firm believer that you can have life without a negative & postive energy.2 halves make the whole. Everything in this universe has energy in it.Basically the concept of Yin &Yang 8)

[SubmissMe]

[FlightoftheCosmicHippo]

[manlian]

[SubmissMe]

There's a term in medicine called diagnosing a zebra. It referrs to when a doctor diagnoses a patient for a disease nobody's heard of in years when its far more likely that it's a common disease displaying uncommon symptoms.

Basically If ya press your ear to their chest and heer hooves then go ahead and say horsey, not zebra. In other words the most simple explaination is probably the best.

So for me God seems just one of those inventions we can blame our problems on, use to solve the mysteries of the cosmos and blah blah blah......

[Jack]

[manlian]

[SubmissMe]

Jack, I get what you're saying but I wasn't referring to people blaming God for stepping on nails. I was referring to the bigger picture - life, the universe and everything sorta thing.

[Jack]

??

[aeroue]

How could you take God out of the equation?

If God exists by definition he is necessary for anything to happen.
No God, no creation, no nail to stand on.
Assuming it is a creator God as I assume you meant the classical theistic God.

-It sounds like you are saying whether or not god exists is irrelevant, or did I misinterpret...

[Jack]

[Mallic]

[aeroue]

But without the push, there would have been nothing...

So how is God irrelevant?

It simply is not logical to say that that which is the root of everything is insignificant.

I see what you are saying but supposing God exists you are wrong, because if he does but he didn't there would be nothing.

Anyway we seem to be straying from morality.

By the way, you DO have to push the ball AGAIN, when it gets to the BOTTOM. :P

[SubmissMe]

Well it seemed inevitable that someone posed the idea that morality gomes from God. Thus we discuss if god exists.

Consider this, suppose God does exist. That still doesn't mean that morals come from God.

To be honest, God's existence doesn't matter here.

[Jack]

aeroue: Who says creation has reached the bottom of the hill yet? God is irrelevant because after that first instant God is unneccesary unless we want to start another creation, or recreate this one.

SubmissMe: I thought I already went through this.... If there is a God, then everything came from that God. It's still an irrelevant question to ask though because it clarifies nothing.

[SubmissMe]

Just verifying the point bro :wink:

[CuriousG]

You need to answer two things to measure absolute morality.

1) What is the ideal world?

2) What would the world be like if every person holds to a given moral code?

The closer, #2 is to #1, the more moral the code is. Of course, in the real world things get a lot more messy, this is only useful for random musings.

[charon2187]

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: Repeat after me: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE MORALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


Thinking otherwise is shortsighted and dangerous

[goldragon_70]

[CuriousG]

[charon2187]

:oops:Sorry about that, you struck a rather sensitive nerve. :oops:

[Dog]

[sarnoga]

Morality is simply a means by which some people try to control others. Morality is nothing but a mere fantasy that people have invented to try to artificially create in others the belief that they have obligations to do or not do certain things.

Any discussion of morality that does not recognize this is simply one more attempt at the use of "morality" for manipulation of others.



Sarngoa

[Dog]

[sarnoga]

[Dog]

Sir:
Your tedious maunderings about control and morality are the hot air of an empty soul. You espouse a philosophy meant only to allow you complete freedom sans responsibility. The load of crap you have dumped here is the underpinning of the Nazi and Communist Holocausts.

[willingsub]

[sarnoga]

[Dog]

The first sophomore wrote
And by the way, ever heard of Godwin’s Law? You are another very sad example.

So we see the opposition to moral relativism somehow become an example of an obtuse “Law” proposed by a Usenet poster. The existence of two examples of state defined morality would guarantee the mention of those states in a discussion of morality. When academic argument centers upon morality and whether it is from man or from a deity, those opting for atheistic morality jump to government supplied definitions, and as states devolve from republics to democracies to tyrannies, morality devolves with them.

The second sophomore wrote:
Actually the Nazi and Communist Holocausts were perpetrated against those deemed immoral by the state.

Which is why arguing that morality is man made is a part and parcel of evil. If you allow for atheistic man made morality you allow for mob rule morality.

Neither of the sophomores realize that by arguing as they do they promote the idea that all morals are man made and thus all may be changed to fit anyone’s agenda. From such spring killing fields and burned vacation homes, spiked trees and bombs in abortion clinics.

No action showing hatred for you neighbor is ever morally correct.

The one primary reason men seek to make morality mutable is to have sex. Once the over inflated organ deflates and he has his relief he finds all manner of other behavior allowed as well. (I have not a clue as to why women go along with this).

Man is not capable of promulgating morality except to serve himself. The persistent notion that any superior man exists is vanity. Therefore only deitisticly supplied morals are allowable.

[Jack]

charon2187: Are you omniscient? Do you possess an exact knowledge of reality or morality? I think the answer to these questions is no, and yet yes you do in some small way. Have you ever assaulted someone who did nothing to warrant it? If you did, how did that feel? If not, why not? Have you ever taken something that belonged to someone else? If so, how did that make you feel if you did? If you didn't, why not? If there is no absolute morality, you can make up your own whenever you want and there's nothing to feel bad about if you don't want to(aka - one persons sociopathy is another persons national identity).

Dog: Your arguements are good, just... cloudy.

willingsub&sarnoga: I have some better questions for you.. Where does my freedom end and yours begin? What are freedom, and liberty? What is control? What is it's purpose, it's function?

I have argued that my freedom, my liberty, my right to choose ends where yours begins. What does that mean? It means that if I choose I should be morally and legally free to do whatever I want wherever I want so long as no other beings' freedom, liberty, and right to choose are violated. If I want to walk around naked in public, I should be free to do so wherever I want. Even if it offends you. Especially if it offends you. You have the right to be offended by my nudity as I have the right to be offended by your choice in clothing whatever it may be. What I don't have the right, freedom, liberty, or choice to do is walk around naked in your house(violation of the right/freedom to own property), to force you to stay and watch me walk around naked(freedom of choice in location/mobility), to touch you or force you to touch me if it is your choice that physical contact doesn't occur(freedom of person and in effects).

[sarnoga]

[sarnoga]

[willingsub]

[yaar]

I'm guessing that your paper has long since been written and turned in, but I feel like giving my views on the subject. I steadfastly deny that there is any sort of "absolute" truth or morality. I believe that ultimately, right and wrong are completely relative concepts, differing from person to person. These personal beliefs, however, are greatly influenced by our surrounding: namely your parents/upbringing and the society/culture you live in. While your parents and our culture may set right and wrong boundaries, but the individual is free to tweak these throughout his life. A mix of cultural and individual relativism, if you will.

[SamiBoy]

Morals are not what creates society, society creates morals.

Take the word "Humbug" for example. If morals created society, then in order for society to be the right one the morals must stay the same.

Back in Houdini's day, they thought they had a great society, and "Humbug"
was taboo.

However now it is no longer taboo, and people think we have a great society.

Since the morals changed one society must have not been so great.

If society did not reject the f-word, or the s-word. Then they would not be taboo.

However they do, so they are. Society banned them, the words themselves did not create society for creating morals.

[Alien4420]

[stephiebaby]

"Basically Ayer argues that the statement "stealing is wrong" means no more than saying "stealing, BOO! " in other words morality is just a reflection of feelings towards a particular subject.

Is he right? Or do our morals come from more than just feelings? Any views or analogies would be much appreciated and probably used in my Thesis"

Morality is a consequence, and necessity, of social living. We say stealing is wrong because we do not want our things stolen. We make a pact with our neighbours, our society that stealing is bad for our own protection. The same with murder, drink driving, any law. That is what the judeo/christian ten commandments basically are, guidelines for social living. But in religion morality is fixed as the word of god, or at least fixed in the interpretation of whoever is in charge at the time, and for people with short lifespans and limited technological advancements it is easy to see why they could not conceive of a changing world. Now we use laws and knowledge to make our pacts with our neighbours, as these can change to suit new knowledge and social needs. The only thing that has changed is our recognition of change and the need to grow as a species.

The proof that there is no actual human morality is in cross cultural studies. Morality is defined by the individual culture, and there has been a wide variety of cultures throughout history. Everything has been moral somewhere, at some time. And some things can be both moral and immoral. Many christians would consider incest immoral, however their religion says humanity was formed from incest, twice.

I think Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals may be of use to you?

"Where Morals Come From: Race memory stored in the collective consciousness from a more civilized time. "

Someone needs to spend more time studying history, there have not been more civilised times. We may descend into another dark age, but until then we are living more civilised than any human population ever has.

"John is drowning.

You ought to save John.

Are these two statements interlinked? Does the second statement directly follow the first?"

Of course not. There is no point attempting to save john unless you can save john. Also if John is a psychopath you just threw off a boat to save yourself, he'll probably kill you if you save him.
Morality is fluid and circumstantial.

"Morals in my opinion are bull, just a cunning ploy people came up with to justify their decisions.

But at the same time they are useful and needed in society."

Morals are quite useless in society, and often harmful. Knowledge based law is a much better idea. Morality gives us slavery, knowledge gives us equality. Morality gives us homophobia, knowledge gives us acceptence. Morality tries to supress knowledge in schools, law stands on the side of reason and stops religious oppression.

"as it can be considered moral to educate the mind, to not follow stupidity. "

Adjustable social morals today do say educate, religious morals do not.

"Morals are truly in question, however, when situations that require decisions must be made. If you drive along the road and see a wrecked car, what are your choices? Frankly, it's either to ignore it, or stop and help if you can."

If that is your question then I feel sorry for you. The question is, "Is there any danger in helping". Not only is this my personal morality, it is also my trained responsibility and it fits the social self preservation theory. I'd want someone to help me so I should encourage that behaviour.

"But soon, how likely is it that the "ignorant" driver will soon feel intense guilt for what he has done? "

I doubt this kind of person would feel much guilt. Either they wouldn't care, or they would simply forget they saw it, or they would justify their actions possibly by convincing themselves it was an old crash or there was nothing they could do. They could also think it's all god's plan.

"There was little he could do if he stopped, except fetch a tow truck. If the man inside was dying, what could he do? The cold, logical answer is: Very little. "

PLEASE go and get your first aid qualifications so you can learn to think differently. There is much you can do. You can save lives in this situation, sometimes by doing very little. A person with a minor head wound can die if their head falls forward cutting off the airway. By just moving their head back you can save their life. The idea that there was nothing to be done is one way the person would simply justify their actions, and feel no guilt.

"Being a man of God/Allah/Buddha/etc., etc... is a good thing in my opinion, but that doesn't make you moral"

No, it often makes one xenophobic and judgemental, or immoral. Religion is the greatest justifier for immorality.

"following some diety of choice can cause you to do moral actions, like I hope I got across in the first place. So don't get me wrong; following your God if you have one does go hand-in-hand with morality"

Following a diety can cause moral actions, but only if you personally interpret the diety that way. Usually dieties isolate people and encourage immoral behaviour towards anyone outside their group. Selective morality.

"Also that morality seems to be built into us "

The wide variety in social morality disproves this, and so does the existence of socipaths who lack any "normal" sense of morality. Their "morality" is, anything they do is right, anyone who tries to stop them is wrong. Morality is something we agree to, it is not built into us.

[Alien4420]

[stephiebaby]

"I think you're contradicting your own thesis, with which I happen to agree, by making what is in effect a contemporary moral judgment regarding slavery and homosexuality."

Really? How did we get to the comtempory moral judgement? And where from? We got here from the religious morality, and through social evolution, part of which was replacing susperstition with knowledge. Because laws are fluid and changed with knowledge, we have improved upon the basic social agreements of don't kill, don't steal, and included things like, black people are people, women are people, homosexuality is not evil, slavery is wrong, everyone deserves the right of freedom of choice. These things are both part of the social agreement and the development of knowledge.

"Slavery was part of the economic system in pre-capitalist agriculture societies, an extension, really, of the domestication of animals to human beings. To the extent that it was replaced by serfdom and then mercantilism and capitalism, it was because the newer institutions proved more practical or efficient."

Do you really think paying free people is more practical and efficient? If so how do you explain sweat shops, foreign child labour and the sex slave industry? Slavery is much more efficent and practical. As for the industrial changes, at which point did actual slavery stop? Was it when people got paid next to nothing for long hours? Or was it when people got fixed hours, decent pay, health benefits, superannuation?

"Similarly, elective homosexuality was discouraged in cases in which it was likely to divert resources from children in resource-scarce pre or early industrial societies. "

Elective homosexuality? There is no such thing, and there wasn't pre christianity. Also homosexuality was widely practiced in pre industrial societies.

"Social animals demonstrate both moral and amoral behaviors. There's no reason to believe that we haven't inherited the brain mechanisms for such behaviors, indeed, the fact that we feel guilt, an emotion, suggests to me strongly that we have"

Guilt is subjective and we don't all feel it. You need to include the entire species, not just yourself, or even the majority.

"That's not the same as saying that we inherit a specific morality, e.g., some dogs are trained to beg, and some dogs are trained not to; so even some beasts have a capacity to adopt varying moral systems."

Begging, shaking, sitting, rolling over, fetching, these are all just actions a dog is trained to perform, they have no attached morality. A dog which is trained to fetch is not more moral than a dog which is trained to beg.
But you are right, we do not inherit a species specific morality, there is not such thing.

"Also, the fact that some people are sociopaths doesn't mean that morality isn't built in to the rest of us, or that the sociopaths don't inherit the same moral mechanisms as others, but receive different moral programming (or no moral programming at all?) in childhood."

You can't exclude some segments of the population because they don't fit an idea. These people exist and must be included. Also while many sociopaths may have experienced trauma or moral ambiguity as children, there is no evidence that this is the case for all. The religiously inspired idea that all children are born innocent straight from god does not match observations in the real world any more than the old idea that mothers cannot kill their children. And think about it, if we were all born with the same basic morality, why would there be so many different ideas of morality, or any need for morality or laws? It is the social agreements which bind us, which we instill in our children, that gives us a shared morality. Some choose to live outside those agreements, some are pushed in that direction through circumstances, and some just ignore the concept altogether because they have no idea what it is as they are born sociopaths.

[Alien4420]

[stephiebaby]

"What I think you're overlooking, though, is that moral needs also change as society evolves. For example, safe and effective birth control and abortion make possible a different moral framework for premarital and extramarital sex, as, properly used, unwanted pregnancies can be avoided."

Yes the moral needs change as a society evolves, that is what knowledge does. You are also forgetting feminism as a major influence in more sexual freedom, the male ego was no longer in charge of virginity.

"If slavery is more economically efficient, why was the North so much wealthier than the South?"

You might want to consider the world outside the US, slavery is quite common, it's not an American thing. As to the economic difference, I'm not that informed on US history, but I would guess there were many reasons for the discrepency.

"Slavery was efficient in early agricultural societies"

Um, did you miss my previous examples from modern industrialised societies? The fact it still occurs shows it works. People have to decide not to exploit people, economics wont do it, not without armed revolution.

"and illegally practiced here. But the only way in which those practices occur is because some countries remain at an earlier stage of development"

It happens because it is efficient to exploit people. And there are plenty of businesses which legally exploit people. Exploitation pays quite well. A fair go is another of those social agreements.

"Arguably too, slavery in prostitution is a consequence of the illegality of prostitution rather than efficiency."

It's legal here, and it doesn't stop the slave trade. Legalisation may help, but it won't stop it. Slaves are cheap. You don't have to pay them, there are no benefits or health plan. Efficient.

"Sure there's such a thing as elective homosexuality. It's practiced in prison, aboard ship, in all-male boarding schools, and when guys get drunk. We're a fairly bisexual species"

Make up your mind, is it bisexuality or elective homosexuality? "elective" homosexuality looks like the idea that homosexuality is a choice not biology. Also the examples you mentioned quite often relied on rape, which is not elective.

"Emotions seem to be a consequence of primitive motivational cicuitry and chemistry. I don't think we can feel an emotion if it isn't genetic. Whether we happen to feel that emotion at a given moment is, of course, heavily influenced by upbringing."

Emotions/psychological states can be cultural. There are tribal communities with no concept of depression. (sorry I can't give an example, it's from an old psych lecturer who specialised in cross cultural psychological studies). But there are people who lack certain emotions, and not just from upbringing. Brain structure/damage can have all kinds of effects. And people aren't stamp out in a factory, we are not all made to spec. Humanity has a wide range and in all areas there are those who are outside the "normal" range. Height, IQ, emotional capacity,etc.

"I don't know what creates sociopaths and wouldn't want to depend on studies of childhood environment, which in my experience are often too unsophisticated to detect the subtler underpinnings of adult behavior."

Yes, it is difficult to get a full picture of someones childhood, however there are often indications of issues, and when they are absent and there is no evidnece of any abuse, we need to look elsewhere. Brain structure is starting to answer some of those questions. We like the idea that everyone is born innocnet and nice, and bad people are made bad. But sometimes bad people are just born bad.

"It seems to me entirely possible that it's a combination of nature and nurture, and that that combination varies from person to person."

It is probably all nature, all nurture, or a combination of the two.

"But the fact that some lack a given mechanism doesn't mean we as a species don't inherit such a mechanism."

Yes it does. It means only a certain percentage of the species will have that capacity, but it would not be a species specific trait. You can't say people are shorter than 2 metres by ignoring all the tall people, and you can't say people inherit morality or emotions or empathy by ignoring those who don't have those traits.

"I think we can say that there may be human alleles that code for basic moral mechanisms, even if some individuals don't inherit functional copies"

No, we can't. Individuals and cultures indicate the opposite to me. But no one said we have to agree.

[Alien4420]

[stephiebaby]

"How common is it, really?"

Slavery is one of the most common elements of humanity. It has occurred all over the world, all throughout history. Yes caste systems are one way of doing it, but capturing enemies is another very common way. As is just picking off strays from isolated communities. Addiction has been used, and of course religion is the greatest tool of enslavement as it requires so little work, the slaves enslave themselves and willingly enslave their children, all at no cost. As for India being the most prevalent place for slavery, you might want to look into the situation in Africa, nothing as civilised as a caste system.

"e.g., India, only a minority of mostly low-caste workers are slaves. "

Everyone in a caste system is a slave, some just have pretty cages. But as above, there are many forms of slavery.

"And the productivity of those slaves is for the most part much lower than it is in advanced societies"

And yet slavery still occurs in these advanced societies, why? Because disposable labour is efficient. And many companies outsource to poorer countries where people will work for next to nothing, wages and conditions many in advanced societies would consider slavery. Some companies have even been caught using what amounts to child slavery sweat shops. Also don't forget that the advanced socities you refer to have made slavery illegal, it didn't dissappear through economic competition, it was outlawed.

"The productivity of those workers is extremely low compared to the productivity of workers in comparable fields in modern market economies. "

You've switched from efficiency to productivity, why? Also don't limit yourself to technologically influenced jobs, remember one of the most prevelent slave jobs in advanced socieites, prostitution. Does your productivity argument still work? Also how much more productive would industrial jobs be if the workers didn't get weekends, holidays or breaks, and got a lash of the whip anytime they slackened off? I'm betting people will work harder to save their lives than they will for a pay packet, set hours and a comfy chair, beer and tv to go home to? What do you think?

"You're thinking of the wealth of the business owner. But from an economic perspective, one has to consider the wealth per capita. If it takes 100 slaves and 1 businessman to produce a widget and 3 market employees and 1 businessman to produce a widget, the market economy is more productive by a factor of 25. "

Yes, I'm thinking of effeciency, not producticity or wealth per capita. Straight out efficiency, and more per business or project than as a society, but the principles still apply to the larger scale. Disposable labour is much more efficient than free, paid labour. Especially once you add health benefits, regulated hours, overtime rates. If this wasn't the case, then there would be no slavery.

"Sometimes it relies on rape, sometimes not. "

I know sometimes it doesn't involve rape, but quite often it does. In boarding schools and ships the rape can often be disguised as ritual, initiation, an almost caste system of lower ranked individuals having to serve higher ranked ones. But any form of coersion is still rape. Also despite the stereotype that men are uncontrolable sex machines, we do not have to rape any woman who is uncovered, and we don't immediately start having sex with each other if there are no women around. The myth of men needing to have sex with each other in all male environments probably comes from two places. Bi guys who need to give themselves permission to be bi, and bi or gay guys using peer pressure to coerce others into cooperating. You do know that guys and girls can be friends and not have sex don't you? Just another popular sexual stereotype which is also used as an excuse, but for people who want to have affairs.

"2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

I used the word in the second sense."

I would say if it's not coerced then it's either homosexuality or bisexuality, not "elective homosexuality". The term "elective homosexuality" really does sound like a term from people who think sexuality is a choice, or bisexual people who can't admit their bisexuality.

"Depression isn't an emotion, but rather a mental state that's characterized in part by certain emotions -- hopelessness, sadness, etc. And those are universals."

I would doubt hopelessness is universal. If it was, then depression would be to, they go hand in hand. One could not be hopeless and not depressed. Also anyone who understood hopeless, even deep sadness, would have some concept of depression.

"So do animals. In fact, as far as I know, there are no emotions peculiar to human beings."

Be very careful when talking about emotions and animals. It's very common for people to put a little to much of themselves into the animals they are observing, like cat or dog owners who think their pet is a child. You see it on docos all the time, the presenters personify the animals to try and put human value to certain behaviours. And animals are not all one species, I think you'll find the emotional range and depth to be as varied as the species themselves.

"It is probably all nature, all nurture, or a combination of the two.

Twin studies suggest that it's a combination"

Sexuality is not quite sociopaths. These individuals would indicate it can be nature, nurture, or a combination of both. I guess time and medical improvements will add light to the subject, but we already know sociopaths can be made, and there are very strong indications that they can be born. Considering the range of human behaviour, I would be very surprised if all sociopaths needed some kind of outside influence.

"Also, people change sexual orientation with the files on this site"

Do they? Or do they just use files on this site to give themselves permission? I would suggest one must be bi to download and listen to those files in the first place. Also you'll find people all over this site saying hypnosis can't make you do anything you don't want to do in the first place, which would support my idea.

"You can, however, say that the human species has two arms and two legs, although some people lose them or are born without."

Those who lost them had them to begin with. Of those who are born without, I wonder how many have no residual bones, joints or muscles which show what was meant to be there and how that information (or lack of) compares to brain structure, emotions and intelligence?

"And that's how I'd characterize what for want of a better term might be called the moral faculty."

I prefer the bell curve approach. It certainly seems to match reality. It covers the entire species and it accounts for the large middle ground. And it fits everything I've learned and encountered in my life.

"But the brain mechanisms and instincts that underlie them are in my opinion as much a part of our species as arms and legs."

I wonder if this is your opinion because of your knowledge on the subject, or if it is because this idea is the more comfortable of the two? In this indifferent universe I am always skeptical of ideas which are too comfortable/comforting. It would be much better if really bad people could only be made, because it would mean in an idealic environment there would be no crime, no murder. It would also match the god need, babies being pure and innocentc and only we can turn them bad (praise god, blame ourselves). Obviously this doesn't disprove your idea, it is just a thought about keeping desires seperate from observations.

"As I think I mentioned, moral behavior and empathy are observed in lower animals. I don't see any reason to suppose that we've lost all the applicable genes."

Some animals, to some degree. But the most important animal in this discussion is us. No species comes close to us in intellectual capacity, and I've yet to see any that come close to us in emotional capacity. The biological and lifestyle difference are so massive that unique emotional capacities is inevitable.