The irony is if you pay attention to the cartoon that this whole thing started with (a completely different topic by the way) you’ll see it was mostly, all about people, who refuse to educate themselves (in this case even in the basics) and then argue nonsense and when challenged on their lack of background (in this case even minimal-background) there is nothing but evasive tactics.
It may not seem this way but we’ve been remarkably patient with someone who is arguing out of their ass, dismissing ideas he’s never read, calling stuff his is ignorant about “not useful” and then asserting logically flawed arguments.
Some people simply do not want to put in the minimal effort and enjoy farting nonsense out of their ass.
There are multiple approaches or perspectives on morality itself. That is not controversial. However there are not equally valid multiple perspectives on the claim “there are absolute moral truths” which Simon has repeatedly and indirectly insisted on multiple times throughout this conversal. Those exist or they don’t. We claim there is no evidence these exist. From Simon we’ve so far not gotten even a method on how that could be determined but instead some wishy washy garbage about evolution, canvassing Earth’s catalog of morality and some claim about the value of religious morality (lol). No one denies the value of studying morality from an evolutionary perspective (it must be done). But claiming you can find absolute universal morality through this search is absurd.
If you cannot even get someone to read a very short intro to a topic (that you offer to gift them for free), on a topic that person has contributed literally hundreds of posts on this site, then, well, fuck that shit. It’s entirely sensible to be done with this conversation.
The point of an evolutionary approach to morality, the reason why it works, is that evolution is fundamental to the biological natural world, and morality is a natural phenomenon embedded within other natural phenomena: e.g., biology, psychology, ecology. It also goes a long way to “explain” organised religion: how it may have arisen, and some of its adaptive functions.
It also goes a long way to “explain” organised religion: how it may have arisen, and some of its adaptive functions.
Bear in mind Simon that religion was born out of the ignorance of mankind. When it became “organized” the rulers of the day found it useful when they discovered that what they wanted just happened to be what their particular god happened to also want.
Like most lingering religions of today, their self-appointed spokesmen are often heard to claim “god told me……you can or cannot do this”. They claim to know the mind of god. This is usually followed up with a request for your money.