[quote]Because community is survival for us, we cannot survive completely alone. Morality facilitates good community behavior and thus allows you to survive.[/quote] Abortion should, by nature, be immoral as it inhibits offspring. Laziness should, “by nature”, never have come into existence as it in no way contributes towards survival nor the survival of one’s species. Any act of murder should, “by nature”, be accepted as a method of “survival of the fittest”. Evolution nor science cannot produce consistent or concrete morality or ethics.

Laziness should have been removed/eliminated by nature. If it is here then someone benefitted from it and reproduced.

[quote][quote]Because community is survival for us, we cannot survive completely alone. Morality facilitates good community behavior and thus allows you to survive.[/quote] Abortion should, by nature, be immoral as it inhibits offspring. Laziness should, “by nature”, never have come into existence as it in no way contributes towards survival nor the survival of one’s species. Any act of murder should, “by nature”, be accepted as a method of “survival of the fittest”. Evolution nor science cannot produce consistent or concrete morality or ethics.[/quote] Morality, as in the ability to consider what is right or wrong was evolved. What is considered right or wrong by the individual is not something in your genes, your beliefs are created by you.

[quote][quote][quote]Because community is survival for us, we cannot survive completely alone. Morality facilitates good community behavior and thus allows you to survive.[/quote] Abortion should, by nature, be immoral as it inhibits offspring. Laziness should, “by nature”, never have come into existence as it in no way contributes towards survival nor the survival of one’s species. Any act of murder should, “by nature”, be accepted as a method of “survival of the fittest”. Evolution nor science cannot produce consistent or concrete morality or ethics.[/quote] Morality, as in the ability to consider what is right or wrong was evolved. What is considered right or wrong by the individual is not something in your genes, your beliefs are created by you.[/quote] False. It was not evolved. Ideas are not made of matter, nor energy. Thus, morality was never derived from the natural world.

Proof? How do you know ideas were not created by patterns of electricity within your brain.

[quote]Abortion should, by nature, be immoral as it inhibits offspring.[/quote]By nature, wild animals also commit infanticide towards their young. [quote]Laziness should, “by nature”, never have come into existence as it in no way contributes towards survival nor the survival of one’s species.[/quote]Place any lazy person out in the middle of a forest beyond society, and boom: they either stay lazy and die or become proactive. Evolution/adaptation. [quote]Any act of murder should, “by nature”, be accepted as a method of “survival of the fittest”. [/quote]Nope. Killing a fellow member of the herd can weaken the herd, thus not allowed.

[quote][quote]Abortion should, by nature, be immoral as it inhibits offspring.[/quote]By nature, wild animals also commit infanticide towards their young. [quote]Laziness should, “by nature”, never have come into existence as it in no way contributes towards survival nor the survival of one’s species.[/quote]Place any lazy person out in the middle of a forest beyond society, and boom: they either stay lazy and die or become proactive. Evolution/adaptation. [quote]Any act of murder should, “by nature”, be accepted as a method of “survival of the fittest”. [/quote]Nope. Killing a fellow member of the herd can weaken the herd, thus not allowed.[/quote] Yet many people find the killing of children as immoral, and many find it not immoral. Most wealthy people, those who demonstrate the most power in human society, tend to live very lazy, leisurely lifestyles, while the less valued people tend to work harder so that they may also obtain lazy, leisurely lifestyles. False. Like you said initially, some animals commit infanticide, even murder, for personal sustenance or to inhibit competition.

Moral or not, nature has shown animals killing their own offspring. There is no disputing this. Your stance on the rich vs the poor is pointless. Society, or the herd, allows for such realities and circumstances to happen. Place the richest man in the world within a dense forest, far beyond the reach of society, and his vast wealth becomes meaningless. Society allows such an individual to eat and sleep. It is not the rich man who hunts his own food. Or builds his own gun, or makes his own gunpowder from scratch. It is not the rich man who cuts down trees by hand to build his home. The rich man is allowed all of these commodities due to the herd of society. The very workers you mentioned. So why are the lazy rich the rich, and the hard workers poor? Because that is what society ultimately became. Society is the culmination of human progress, and all its politics. The choices of the masses reflect in society, and they chose to not help the poor.

[quote]Moral or not, nature has shown animals killing their own offspring. There is no disputing this.[/quote] And thus: objective morality cannot be derived from nature by any consistent means. [quote]Your stance on the rich vs the poor is pointless. Society, or the herd, allows for such realities and circumstances to happen. Place the richest man in the world within a dense forest, far beyond the reach of society, and his vast wealth becomes meaningless. Society allows such an individual to eat and sleep.[/quote] False. For some social creatures, the Alphas tend to work less, while with other social creatures, the Alphas work just as hard, if not more than the others. Like I said, you only prove my point. [quote]It is not the rich man who hunts his own food. Or builds his own gun, or makes his own gunpowder from scratch. It is not the rich man who cuts down trees by hand to build his home. The rich man is allowed all of these commodities due to the herd of society. The very workers you mentioned. [/quote] And thus: society seeks to work its way up to obtain more leisure, not towards improvement. [quote]So why are the lazy rich the rich, and the hard workers poor? Because that is what society ultimately became. Society is the culmination of human progress, and all its politics. The choices of the masses reflect in society, and they chose to not help the poor.[/quote] Thus: contrary to the fundamental law of evolution and nature, “survival of the fittest”, humanity lives in contrast, the fittest working towards the survival of the lazy.

[quote]And thus: objective morality cannot be derived from nature by any consistent means.[/quote]Because you find abortion appalling? [quote]False. For some social creatures, the Alphas tend to work less, while with other social creatures, the Alphas work just as hard, if not more than the others. Like I said, you only prove point.[/quote]You just said I was false, but then never proved anything. Try again. [quote]And thus: society seeks to work its way up to obtain more leisure, not towards improvement[/quote]Well, yeah. Evolution is a means of adapting to survive. If you live leisurely, there's no need to change. Because you're surviving. [quote]Thus: contrary to the fundamental law of evolution and nature, “survival of the fittest”, humanity lives in contrast, the fittest working towards the survival of the lazy.[/quote]The survival of the fittest is no longer applicable, due to advances in medicine and technology. The natural order doesn't apply as often here due to the advances in science. Overweight people for example would see far more deaths. We aren't running around gathering berries these days.

[quote][quote]And thus: objective morality cannot be derived from nature by any consistent means.[/quote]Because you find abortion appalling? [quote]False. For some social creatures, the Alphas tend to work less, while with other social creatures, the Alphas work just as hard, if not more than the others. Like I said, you only prove point.[/quote]You just said I was false, but then never proved anything. Try again. [quote]And thus: society seeks to work its way up to obtain more leisure, not towards improvement[/quote]Well, yeah. Evolution is a means of adapting to survive. If you live leisurely, there's no need to change. Because you're surviving. [quote]Thus: contrary to the fundamental law of evolution and nature, “survival of the fittest”, humanity lives in contrast, the fittest working towards the survival of the lazy.[/quote]The survival of the fittest is no longer applicable, due to advances in medicine and technology. The natural order doesn't apply as often here due to the advances in science. Overweight people for example would see far more deaths. We aren't running around gathering berries these days.[/quote] Abortion is infanticide. The sacrifice of children for the sake of convenience and leisure. False, I did actually prove you wrong. False, surviving is not thriving. Thriving is to advance your species, but humanity sees laziness and leisure as a goal to advance towards, which is stagnation. And thus, as you say, with “survival of the fittest” no longer being applicable, you prove my point. Morality cannot be consistently derived from nature.

[quote]Abortion is infanticide. The sacrifice of children for the sake of convenience and leisure.[/quote]Not always. [quote]False, I did actually prove you wrong.[/quote]Telling me that I'm wrong and proving your point, contrary to popular belief, doesn't really prove anything. Try again. [quote]False, surviving is not thriving.[/quote]But thriving is surviving, which is my point. [quote]Thriving is to advance your species, but humanity sees laziness and leisure as a goal to advance towards, which is stagnation. [/quote]Striving to better your species isn't evolution. Evolution is merely something that happens, given enough time. I'm not going to work everyday with the express purpose of helping all of humanity. I'm going to work so I can pay bills and put food on the table to survive. The majority of humanity is the same way. To think otherwise is naive. It's just that everyone working matters to society, which in turn allows human civilizations to remain somewhat stable. Which in turn allows other people to work towards developing technologies that better society, ergo helping humanity. Like debeloping toilets and toilet paper. You're working so society can run smoothly, so you can live in a more stable environment. That's it. There's no grand "working to better humanity as a whole" in everyday life. Unless you're someone who donates most of their paychecks to charity and supporting things like welfare, I wouldn't get on that high horse. [quote]And thus, as you say, with “survival of the fittest” no longer being applicable, you prove my point. Morality cannot be consistently derived from nature.[/quote]That's uh... quite the leap. So alpha males no longer dominant means morality isn't derived from nature? What a leap in logic. Wanna know why murder is so bad? Because killing a member of your tribe weakens the tribe and endangering everybody else. Wanna know why stealing is bad? One person stealing all the berries and meat means that the tribe goes hungry, endangering the tribe. Wanna know why racism exists? Because once upon a time people of different races were in different groups fighting to survive. If you didn't look like me, you're not apart of the tribe and must be eliminated so the tribe can continue to grow. More tribes means more competition over food. Ergo, removing rival tribes grants your tribe more food. Though that last one is has much more to it, don't get me wrong.

[quote][quote]Abortion is infanticide. The sacrifice of children for the sake of convenience and leisure.[/quote]Not always. [quote]False, I did actually prove you wrong.[/quote]Telling me that I'm wrong and proving your point, contrary to popular belief, doesn't really prove anything. Try again. [quote]False, surviving is not thriving.[/quote]But thriving is surviving, which is my point. [quote]Thriving is to advance your species, but humanity sees laziness and leisure as a goal to advance towards, which is stagnation. [/quote]Striving to better your species isn't evolution. Evolution is merely something that happens, given enough time. I'm not going to work everyday with the express purpose of helping all of humanity. I'm going to work so I can pay bills and put food on the table to survive. The majority of humanity is the same way. To think otherwise is naive. It's just that everyone working matters to society, which in turn allows human civilizations to remain somewhat stable. Which in turn allows other people to work towards developing technologies that better society, ergo helping humanity. Like debeloping toilets and toilet paper. You're working so society can run smoothly, so you can live in a more stable environment. That's it. There's no grand "working to better humanity as a whole" in everyday life. Unless you're someone who donates most of their paychecks to charity and supporting things like welfare, I wouldn't get on that high horse. [quote]And thus, as you say, with “survival of the fittest” no longer being applicable, you prove my point. Morality cannot be consistently derived from nature.[/quote]That's uh... quite the leap. So alpha males no longer dominant means morality isn't derived from nature? What a leap in logic. Wanna know why murder is so bad? Because killing a member of your tribe weakens the tribe and endangering everybody else. Wanna know why stealing is bad? One person stealing all the berries and meat means that the tribe goes hungry, endangering the tribe. Wanna know why racism exists? Because once upon a time people of different races were in different groups fighting to survive. If you didn't look like me, you're not apart of the tribe and must be eliminated so the tribe can continue to grow. More tribes means more competition over food. Ergo, removing rival tribes grants your tribe more food. Though that last one is has much more to it, don't get me wrong.[/quote] Abortion hardly occurs for reasons of r[i]a[/i]pe or deadly health risks, but mostly occurs for reasons of convenience and leisure. False. Proving my point literally proves my point. Thriving is beyond surviving. The problem of mankind is that, in thriving, they tend to regress. Just as you say, although you have great capacity to thrive, you would rather aim just to survive. You limit yourself to believing that advancement starts with technological advancement, when in actuality it begins within an individual’s mind. It then flows into your family, neighbors, and community. Seeking truth. The hypocrisy that you demonstrate is the very same reason why humanity continues its self destructive nature despite all of you “technological advancements”. Again, you cherry-pick my words, and quite incorrectly at that, despite your “advancements”. Ironic. In some species, the alphas work harder than the rest, and in other species, the alphas work less. Behaviors throughout nature are not consistent enough for you or any man to consistently derive any consistent morality from nature. You say murder is wrong, yet you defend abortion. You say murder is wrong, yet fail to recognize or mention the situations where the “murder” preserves the lives of others from destructive people. You say stealing is bad, yet are perfectly fine with internet privacy, absurd taxation, greed, and the poor stealing just enough from the rich to get by. You say racism is bad, yet continue to fall into the same and subtle trappings of which the underlying motives of racism manifests. No, what you reference is simply cause and effect and the consequences thereof. Racism, murder, and theft all commonly occur in nature as a fact of life and survival. Yet you seek to distance yourself from those behaviors. Yet again proving that you are not deriving them from nature.

[quote]Abortion hardly occurs for reasons of rape or deadly health risks, but mostly occurs for reasons of convenience and leisure.[/quote]So not always for leisure. Thanks. [quote]Proving my point literally proves my point.[/quote]Keep telling yourself that. You seem really stuck on the "surviving means you're thriving" bit. Change the wording a bit, and you'll have thriving means you're surviving. You cannot thrive if you're not surviving. If you cannot get that basic statement then this conversation is as good as finished. [quote]You say murder is wrong, yet you defend abortion. You say murder is wrong, yet fail to recognize or mention the situations where the “murder” preserves the lives of others from destructive people. You say stealing is bad, yet are perfectly fine with internet privacy, absurd taxation, greed, and the poor stealing just enough from the rich to get by. You say racism is bad, yet continue to fall into the same and subtle trappings of which the underlying motives of racism manifests.[/quote]Baseless accusations. What nonsense is this? Where could you rightfully accuse me of defending abortion anywhere? Not once have I, I merely stated that in nature animals also kill off their young. I also stated that abortion isn't always for leisure, and asked the reason you find it immoral is because you personally find it appalling. Do you disagree with anything that I just stated? If not, then don't insult me. It brings into question your maturity to handle such topics. "Murder" is defined as the illegal killing of human life. Unless you think self-defense is murder, "murder" is pretty self explanatory so I didn't think I needed to explain it to you. And where did I say laziness was fine? I implied the exact opposite, but society allows people to be lazy. But even laziness has its limits. I think you've lost yourself in this conversation, why don't you take a step back and think about what you're replying too? The rest is irrelevant. [quote]No, what you reference is simply cause and effect and the consequences thereof. Racism, murder, and theft all commonly occur in nature as a fact of life and survival. Yet you seek to distance yourself from those behaviors. Yet again proving that you are not deriving them from nature.[/quote]Seriously, stringing together random words doesn't make an argument. You do not grasp the basic function of early human tribes, and thus you have failed to understand the subject of which we are discussing. Though I do apologize for not going through every single little detail of morality for you. If you're dissatisfied then I'm afraid you'll just have to go on some ancient philosophical history forum and ask there. There's always Reddit, try searching for "metaethics". Human murder is morally wrong because we evolved into social creatures who thrive on working together in a society. The idea that you're working towards advancing the human race is not evolution, or even morality, but thinking of your fellow man is empathy. Murder weakens the tribe, and thus endangers everybody within the tribe. If the people in the US started murdering each other en-mass without consequence, the country would fall to ruin. Quite literally a middle school example. If you disagree with this basic notion, this conversation is finished. If you have nothing else to add except that I'm proving some nonexistent point of yours, then I believe we are finished here. Honestly, I don't even know what your counterpoint is to all of this. If morality isn't derived from nature, then where does it?

[quote][quote]Abortion hardly occurs for reasons of rape or deadly health risks, but mostly occurs for reasons of convenience and leisure.[/quote]So not always for leisure. Thanks.[/quote] If you would like to oversimplify it like that, go right ahead. [quote][quote]Proving my point literally proves my point.[/quote]Keep telling yourself that.[/quote] I will. A = A. If I prove my point, then I prove my point. That is how it works. Unless, by you having nothing really to say about it and are trying to save face by saying something snarky, of course, you would think otherwise. [quote]You seem really stuck on the "surviving means you're thriving" bit. Change the wording a bit, and you'll have thriving means you're surviving. You cannot thrive if you're not surviving. If you cannot get that basic statement then this conversation is as good as finished.[/quote] False. I am sure Bill Gates or Timothy Cook or Jeff Bezos are not at all concerned with survival. No, they are living examples of “thriving does not mean you are surviving”. Those who are concerned with surviving do not have the luxury of luxury. And yet, they seek the lifestyles that those rich people have. Most of which are so preoccupied by their wealth that they are out of touch with the rest of the world. [quote][quote]You say murder is wrong, yet you defend abortion. You say murder is wrong, yet fail to recognize or mention the situations where the “murder” preserves the lives of others from destructive people. You say stealing is bad, yet are perfectly fine with internet privacy, absurd taxation, greed, and the poor stealing just enough from the rich to get by. You say racism is bad, yet continue to fall into the same and subtle trappings of which the underlying motives of racism manifests.[/quote]Baseless accusations. What nonsense is this? Where could you rightfully accuse me of defending abortion anywhere? Not once have I, I merely stated that in nature animals also kill off their young. I also stated that abortion isn't always for leisure, and asked the reason you find it immoral is because you personally find it appalling. Do you disagree with anything that I just stated? If not, then don't insult me. It brings into question your maturity to handle such topics.[/quote] Oh how you wish it was baseless. It hardly happens, and that is understated, that abortion occurs for reasons of rape or deadly health risks, but mostly, and that is also understated, occurs for reasons of convenience and leisure. If you remotely acknowledged that or opposed abortion, you would not in the slightest have gotten so ignorantly caught up in defending you position upon the hill of extreme outliers. You humans are not animals, yet assert yourselves as if you were above all animals, yet, as you are doing, cherry-pick behaviors of the animal kingdom to justify your moralities, despite nature being full of contradicting and conflicting behaviors. You insult yourself by means of your hypocrisy. [quote]"Murder" is defined as the illegal killing of human life. Unless you think self-defense is murder, "murder" is pretty self explanatory so I didn't think I needed to explain it to you. [/quote] Legalities are literally subjective in human cultures around the world. Not to mention how subjective and inconsistently they are enforced. In America, abortion is legalized. Other countries may have illegalized it. In some Middle Eastern countries, honor killings are still legalized, or are claimed (for international image purposes) but are not at all enforced. Are you ignorant of the methods of North Korea? You could be tortured and killed for the slightest of whimsical reasonings. Were you ignorant of the going ons of Hong Kong? The Chinese government support of abducting protestors or Uyghurs to later kill them in concentration camps. [quote]And where did I say laziness was fine? I implied the exact opposite, but society allows people to be lazy. But even laziness has its limits. I think you've lost yourself in this conversation, why don't you take a step back and think about what you're replying too? The rest is irrelevant. [/quote] You claim that Humanity derives or evolved its morality from nature and the animal kingdom and science, yet have failed to provide a consistent systematic way of doing so from those sources. The existence of laziness in human society is one example that proves that morality or human behavior was not derived from the evolution or the animal kingdom. [quote][quote]No, what you reference is simply cause and effect and the consequences thereof. Racism, murder, and theft all commonly occur in nature as a fact of life and survival. Yet you seek to distance yourself from those behaviors. Yet again proving that you are not deriving them from nature.[/quote]Seriously, stringing together random words doesn't make an argument.[/quote] If you find my sentences to be “strings of random words” then you obviously need to go relearn how to read, and you obviously are out of valid counter arguments. [quote]You do not grasp the basic function of early human tribes, and thus you have failed to understand the subject of which we are discussing.[/quote] False. I do in fact have a greater understanding of human behavior of early human tribes and cultures than you do. What is apparent is that you are projecting your own shortcomings and demonstrate that you literally do not know what you are talking about. [quote]Though I do apologize for not going through every single little detail of morality for you. If you're dissatisfied then I'm afraid you'll just have to go on some ancient philosophical history forum and ask there. There's always Reddit, try searching for "metaethics".[/quote] Not sorry to say this at all, but Reddit is not a substantial source of education. It is ignorant of you to even suggest that. [quote]Human murder is morally wrong because we evolved into social creatures who thrive on working together in a society.[/quote] False. Murder is subjectively defined and enforced throughout the world. Evolution, contrary to ignorant belief, never consistently justified why murder is wrong. [quote]The idea that you're working towards advancing the human race is not evolution, or even morality, but thinking of your fellow man is empathy.[/quote] False. Many “first world” peoples, though they posture to be so, are not as empathetic as you say. [quote]Murder weakens the tribe, and thus endangers everybody within the tribe.[/quote] And yet the murdering of unborn children is promoted despite, as you say, “murder weakens the tribe”. Ironic that nations considered as being of the “first” and best developed of other nations have regressed into justifying the murder of the unborn for convenience. So which is it? You say that society has evolved and progressed, yet modern human behavior demonstrates otherwise. [quote]If the people in the US started murdering each other en-mass without consequence, the country would fall to ruin. Quite literally a middle school example. If you disagree with this basic notion, this conversation is finished.[/quote] Define “ruin”? The people in the US started murdering their unborn children en-mass without legal consequence, and the country is indeed falling into moral and ethical and cultural ruin. But it is in no physical ruin as Europe was at the fall of Rome and the Holy Roman Empire. [quote]If you have nothing else to add except that I'm proving some nonexistent point of yours, then I believe we are finished here. Honestly, I don't even know what your counterpoint is to all of this. If morality isn't derived from nature, then where does it?[/quote] Oh good! After all this time you finally decided to be humble and ask a question. However, I am not going to spell it out for you. Because, if I did, you would obviously reject it outright out of pride to defend your position and not seem foolish. Morality is intangible. An idea. Morality, ideas, they are not made of mass, and they are not made of energy. You cannot physically quantify ideas or philosophies or ideas. Thus, they are not of the physical world. Science, which is the study of the [u]physical[/u] world, thus, has no bearing on such intangible existences. For you cannot measure good and evil on a spectrum or by means of increments. And yet, despite being intangible, despite having no mass or energy, ideas and morality and philosophies exist. Hmmmmmm..... I wonder what that could possibly imply.....?

[quote]It hardly happens, and that is understated, that abortion occurs for reasons of rape or deadly health risks, but mostly, and that is also understated, occurs for reasons of convenience and leisure. [/quote]Like I said, not always for leisure. You're literally arguing with me as you agree with me lol. [quote]If you remotely acknowledged that or opposed abortion, you would not in the slightest have gotten so ignorantly caught up in defending you position upon the hill of extreme outliers. You humans are not animals, yet assert yourselves as if you were above all animals, yet, as you are doing, cherry-pick behaviors of the animal kingdom to justify your moralities, despite nature being full of contradicting and conflicting behaviors.[/quote]The fact that these "extreme outliers" exist proves what I am saying. How many times do i have to say "not always for leisure"? Like, come on my dude. Read. Though I'm growing bored of you trying to turn this into an abortion conversation when this is talking about where morality comes from. You painting me as some kind of murderer lover because I'm saying abortion isn't always for leisure is pretty dumb. Get with the program, we're discussing a time before the politics of abortion were even a thing. Btw, humans are animals. Mammals, to be precise. [quote]Legalities are literally subjective in human cultures around the world. Not to mention how subjective and inconsistently they are enforced.[/quote]And yet things like murder and theft are often illegal in most cultures. Including North Korea. Punishments vary. Sometimes jail, sometimes loss of a hand, sometimes death. Or stoned. Those types of things. [quote]False. I do in fact have a greater understanding of human behavior of early human tribes and cultures than you do.[/quote]Then why don't you start using that understanding so we can get a move on with the conversation? [quote]If you find my sentences to be “strings of random words” then you obviously need to go relearn how to read, and you obviously are out of valid counter arguments.[/quote]Coming from a guy who says I support murder because I told you abortion isn't always used for leisure. Jesus Christ, you're something else! [quote]And yet the murdering of unborn children is promoted despite, as you say, “murder weakens the tribe”. Ironic that nations considered as being of the “first” and best developed of other nations have regressed into justifying the murder of the unborn for convenience. So which is it? You say that society has evolved and progressed, yet modern human behavior demonstrates otherwise.[/quote]Seems your only argument regarding that morality stems from early tribes/evolution is "but abortion." Perhaps, if you were to simply consider this little idea, is because abortion is something that the evolutionary process never adapted for. As in, some may see the fetus as part of the mother instead of as it's own person. This negating the "murder" Crazy idea I know, but I'm not exactly an expert compared to those who practice and study such topics. I am of the opinion that the loss of potential life is still the loss of life, so yeah. Just remember that humanity didn't evolve into a hivemind. Everyone has different opinions, such as abortion, due to their own upbringing. It's simple the way humanity evolved. [quote]Not sorry to say this at all, but Reddit is not a substantial source of education. It is ignorant of you to even suggest that.[/quote]So you prefer to be close-minded? Very well. You can continue discussing metaethics with me, someone who doesn't study metaethics, on a small, quiet video game forum. [quote]Because, if I did, you would obviously reject it outright out of pride to defend your position and not seem foolish.[/quote]lol talk about projection [quote]Science, which is the study of the physical world[/quote]What do ya call psychology? Sociology? Anthropology? These are all sciences, of which are not always physical.

Apologies. I dozed off reading you response. [quote][quote]It hardly happens, and that is understated, that abortion occurs for reasons of rape or deadly health risks, but mostly, and that is also understated, occurs for reasons of convenience and leisure. [/quote]Like I said, not always for leisure. You're literally arguing with me as you agree with me lol.[/quote] Not so. Almost 100% of abortions in the US alone occurs for reasons of leisure and convenience. [quote][quote]If you remotely acknowledged that or opposed abortion, you would not in the slightest have gotten so ignorantly caught up in defending you position upon the hill of extreme outliers. You humans are not animals, yet assert yourselves as if you were above all animals, yet, as you are doing, cherry-pick behaviors of the animal kingdom to justify your moralities, despite nature being full of contradicting and conflicting behaviors.[/quote]The fact that these "extreme outliers" exist proves what I am saying. How many times do i have to say "not always for leisure"? Like, come on my dude. Read. [/quote] Because you have resorted to defending a technicality rather than and actual argument. [quote]Though I'm growing bored of you trying to turn this into an abortion conversation when this is talking about where morality comes from. You painting me as some kind of murderer lover because I'm saying abortion isn't always for leisure is pretty dumb. Get with the program, we're discussing a time before the politics of abortion were even a thing.[/quote] Abortion is the easiest subject to use because of how clear the morality of it is. You are more concerned with defending your technicality than agreeing to how much abortion is abused in First World Societies. [quote]Btw, humans are animals. Mammals, to be precise.[/quote] False. Humans are mammalian, but not mere animals. Otherwise you are entirely a hypocrite with every fiber of your being. Now please disagree with me so that I may enjoy tearing your worldview apart. [quote][quote]Legalities are literally subjective in human cultures around the world. Not to mention how subjective and inconsistently they are enforced.[/quote]And yet things like murder and theft are often illegal in most cultures. Including North Korea. Punishments vary. Sometimes jail, sometimes loss of a hand, sometimes death. Or stoned. Those types of things.[/quote] Except murder is relatively defined around the world. North Korea is fine with torturing and killing its own who oppose their government and conveniently refuse to call it abuse or murder. [quote][quote]False. I do in fact have a greater understanding of human behavior of early human tribes and cultures than you do.[/quote]Then why don't you start using that understanding so we can get a move on with the conversation?[/quote] Because I have been this entire time. The problem here is that your understanding is inferior. [quote][quote]If you find my sentences to be “strings of random words” then you obviously need to go relearn how to read, and you obviously are out of valid counter arguments.[/quote]Coming from a guy who says I support murder because I told you abortion isn't always used for leisure. Jesus Christ, you're something else![/quote] Oh but you fear to admit how blatantly abortion is abused in your own culture. How pathetic. [quote][quote]And yet the murdering of unborn children is promoted despite, as you say, “murder weakens the tribe”. Ironic that nations considered as being of the “first” and best developed of other nations have regressed into justifying the murder of the unborn for convenience. So which is it? You say that society has evolved and progressed, yet modern human behavior demonstrates otherwise.[/quote]Seems your only argument regarding that morality stems from early tribes/evolution is "but abortion." [/quote] That is all I need since it is you who claimed that morality and ethics can be derived from nature and evolution. It is not my fault that your source is full of contradictions. [quote]Perhaps, if you were to simply consider this little idea, is because abortion is something that the evolutionary process never adapted for.[/quote] Oh but you claimed that morality and ethics can be derived from nature/evolution. Thank you for contradicting yourself. [quote]As in, some may see the fetus as part of the mother instead of as it's own person.[/quote] As a result of their own ignorance, hypocrisy, and depravity. [quote]This negating the "murder"[/quote] Murder is murder, whether you deny it or not. [quote]Crazy idea I know, but I'm not exactly an expert compared to those who practice and study such topics.[/quote] Clearly you are far from being an expert. [quote]I am of the opinion that the loss of potential life is still the loss of life, so yeah. [/quote] Abortion is murder. [quote]Just remember that humanity didn't evolve into a hivemind. Everyone has different opinions, such as abortion, due to their own upbringing. It's simple the way humanity evolved.[/quote] Humanity never evolved. [quote][quote]Not sorry to say this at all, but Reddit is not a substantial source of education. It is ignorant of you to even suggest that.[/quote]So you prefer to be close-minded? Very well. You can continue discussing metaethics with me, someone who doesn't study metaethics, on a small, quiet video game forum. [/quote] Reddit and Bungie.net are forums, not sources of education. But if you prefer to settle for low quality sources of education, be my guest. [quote][quote]Because, if I did, you would obviously reject it outright out of pride to defend your position and not seem foolish.[/quote]lol talk about projection [/quote] It is not projecting if you have only proven my point. [quote][quote]Science, which is the study of the physical world[/quote]What do ya call psychology? Sociology? Anthropology? These are all sciences, of which are not always physical.[/quote] If they are not of the physical world, then they obviously are not sciences. They are studies of that which is not physical, that which is beyond the physical world.

So, where do you think morality comes from?

[quote]So, where do you think morality comes from?[/quote] I will not tell you outright, but guide you there socraticly: As morality is intangible and immaterial, not of physical matter nor energy, by what means could it have possibly come from?

I don't recall asking for a riddle. Answer the question, or don't. I've no interest in wannabee mentors.

[quote]I don't recall asking for a riddle.[/quote] Neither do I. I also do not recall giving you an option. [quote]Answer the question, or don't.[/quote] I am answering your question Socraticly. [quote]I've no interest in wannabee mentors.[/quote] I never intended to mentor you, nor am I.

So your role is simply to be a contrarian, and you have nothing to provide. Very well, let us end this boring topic.

[quote]So your role is simply to be a contrarian,[/quote] Here you project a shortsighted conclusion rather than face your own defects. [quote]and you have nothing to provide.[/quote] I cannot possibly provide any more to a cup that is already full of himself. [quote]Very well, let us end this boring topic.[/quote] The topic of your inconsistencies? You need not posture with me, for I see through it.