But that still proves that ice DOES exist.
In terms of morality, what you may think are not black and white situations or grey situations does not follow.
Just because we cannot grasp such examples, does not mean they are not objective.
This is more of a discussion of epistemology. The argument focuses on ontology.
Are you able to respond to the duck example?
Also, i think Michael Ruse says it perfectly here
"The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . ."
The ice analogy was in regards to how you were treating Objective Morality. Your stance seems to be that if one objective morality is true then all must be true. It's more of a mix.
For example, Ruse's comment covers evolutionary morality well, but leaves out the part that there is also societal influence to create new rules of morality. When we had no language and could barely use tools, we had no concepts of modern morality. These were developed as society advanced.
So basically, naturalistic evolution acts as a con artist tricking people into thinking that morality is real. So the act of rape itself isn’t morally wrong. Rather, our genes have tricked us into thinking rape is wrong.
So when you hear about a rape, it is not really wrong, our genes have tricked us into thinking it is wrong because it is beneficial for the species.
But we do not bow down to evolution. After all, evolution also gave us diseases yet we try to eradicate them.
Why can't we eradicate this false belief that rape is wrong and just go out and rape?
I mean, evolution has played a hoax on us.
Only if you see it from the God perspective. Another way to look at it is that God programmed humans to have morality, so we don't have real morality.
The fact is that if morality is a combination of evolutionary traits and societal influence, then morality is very real, it's just not the morality you believe. If I dig a hole, or thousands of years of water erosion digs a hole, it's still a hole. There's no trick there.
To quote one heathen, "If you need God to give you morality, are you really a good person?"
Of course it goes a lot deeper than that. What you're delving into now is the old free will chest nut which asks philosophical questions like:
- If God created us and knows everything we do, how can there be free will?
- If we only have morality because of God, are we really good people or is God forcing us to be good?
- If we only have morality because of evolution, are we really good people or is it just a result of our physiology?
- If our thoughts and actions are just the result of electrical impulses and chemical reactions, are we really in control of ourselves?
Regardless if you're Christian or Atheist. When you delve deep into the theology of free will it generally seems like the only reason we think we have actual free will is because God, or someone else, told us we do. All evidence points to the contrary.
This is the stuff of philosophical nightmares and it often leads to discussion about how culpable a criminal can be for their crimes, especially if they are just the product of their genetics and their upbringing.
