Ad hom deflections from the topic are poor substitutes for reason. Back to the topic: What basis is there, for 'good' and 'evil', other than the relative consequence to the individual? If i take something from you, it is 'bad' to you, but 'good' for me. Why would there be an overriding moral truth to define 'good' and 'bad' in absolute terms?
The law of non-contradiction is not an ad hominem. The fallacy of special pleading is not an ad hominem. The questions you pose about morality apply to God as well, if he exists. Your solution isn't a rational solution.
Here are some conclusions, regarding the interelation and distinctions between morality, instinct, and law: Morality is an inner sense, contrary at times to both instinct and law, overriding both. It is not always followed, but it is 'felt'. Its source is either a supernatural Embedder, or human Indoctrination. Instinct is an animal urge, not reasoned, relating to survival and reproduction, the primal urges of any animal. Some moral values conflict with those urges, and either may 'win', in an individual situation. The individual can distinguish, however, between the instinctive urge, and the moral imperative. Law is the human codifying of morality, with consideration for instinct. The chicken/egg dilemma is present, whether laws instilled the moral values, or whether moral values inspired the laws. The latter seems more likely, as often laws are labeled, 'immoral!' by detractors. Morality is generally given higher precedence, among humans, over law. Many things, like psychopathy, conscience, and language ('right and wrong!') give evidence to the presence of morality as a Real Thing. Whether it is a God given trait, or a human construct seems to be a matter of belief.
Your "conclusions" are just your premises restated in different ways. There is no logical progression from. Our moral instincts call this premise into question. You also seem to start from the assumption that instincts can never conflict, so that anything that conflicts with an instinct can't be an instinct itself, which is of course false. Fight and flight are both instincts, but they conflict. False dichotomy. You continue to ignore empirically proven pro-social instincts. Every bee hive in existence disproves your thesis. Worker bees will sting you to defend their hive. The sting is fatal. The bee dies afterward. And worker bees cannot reproduce. This "urge" is obviously not related to individual survival/reproduction. The false dichotomy you present is a matter of belief. The "conclusions" above are simply matters of your belief, and they are not compatible with the real world.
Examples are good, to illustrate word meanings, and concepts. I offer homosexuality as an example of a 'moral value' Is it an instinct? No. The actual instinct is for reproduction, which requires opposite sexes to procreate. Has it been codified into law? Absolutely. Sometimes for, but mostly against. Human law has historically not been favorable to homosexual behavior. That leaves this as an obvious example of morality. Many, if not most, religious institutions and their bases list homosexual behavior as a 'sin', or 'abomination!', or some other negative connotation. Most cultures, at their peaks of success, have frowned upon homosexuality, and it tends to grow in cultural and civilizational decline or collapse. It is a symptom of decline, in a dying culture. It does not lead the way, in any civilizational advancement. It is contrary to instinct, mostly forbidden by law, and universally rejected as a cultural norm, in every human era, region, and culture. It is tolerated, at best, as an aberration of human sexuality. But it is viewed as 'immoral', by most human cultures. This human phenomenon is a clear example of 'morality', distinguished from instinct and law. The question still remains, regarding morality: Is morality a God infused sense, or a human construct? That provides the basis for either conclusion. In a godless universe, it can only be an arbitrary human construct. But in a God ordered universe, it could be an Absolute moral Standard, that man is expected to observe.
Are you ignoring the myriad of examples of homosexuality found in animals? If homosexuality is contrary to instinct, why should not see it in animals at all.
I would call that anthropomorphic projection. What we 'see' as homosexual behavior is usually a dominance act. Same sex 'humping' is not a sex act, for other animals, but a assertion of dominance. It is anthropomorphic projection to call that, 'homosexuality!' The acts of animals are unfettered by any pretense of 'morality', while human are universally obsessed with it. Why premise every post with some ad hom provocation? Trying to get a rise from me, so I'll be banned?
Except that isn’t actually correct. There are numerous examples of homosexuality in animals that go beyond humping for dominance. There was no ad hominem attack anywhere in my post. Questioning the logic a person uses in their argument is not an attack against them.
Ad hom insinuation, when this is the first time the argument is presented. Attack! Attack! None seen. This is an evidenced rebuttal, to you? Since you assert this without evidence, I'll dismiss it, without evidence.
Why should I have to provide evidence? You have yet to provide any evidence for your assertions. Should we all be dismissing all your threads since you post no evidence? Or does that standard only hypocritically apply to others?
No, you were the first person to bring up homosexuality in nature by claiming it isn’t instinctual. I was asking if you reached that conclusion by ignoring the myriad of examples of homosexuality in animals. Which apparently you were because you think humpng for dominance is the only example of homosexuality in animals.
We have no express immigration clause but do have an Electoral College; our Founding Fathers thought of every Thing.
You claimed the Constitution was race-neutral from inception. That’s patently false as the Three-Fifths Clause demonstrates.
It was not race neutral from inception. Do you even know what the Three-Fifths Clause is? It specifically references and is related to race.
It is most definitely not. It specifically references “Indians” and it also talks about “all other persons” which is meant to mean black slaves.
The most basic illustration of morality, in the human animal, is a conscious awareness of 'good' and 'bad'. People feel wronged, if their standard is violated, whether it is legal or not. Political movements have capitalized on the sense of injustice with slogans to rally people to their cause. Seldom are they, 'My turn to Rule and Exploit!', but 'Peace, Land, Bread!', or 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!', or 'No taxation without Representation!' But these appeals to a universal Standard of 'good and bad' only work in a God ordered universe assumption. There is no absolute 'good & bad!' in a godless universe, just subjective, relative expediency. "What basis is there, for 'good' and 'evil', other than the relative consequence to the individual? If i take something from you, it is 'bad' to you, but 'good' for me. Why would there be an overriding moral truth to define 'good' and 'bad' in absolute terms?" Morality is a delusion, in a godless universe. It is only real if a God embedded it in humans. There is only instinct and human law, in a godless universe. Morality is a human construct for manipulation. How can there be 'good & bad!', in an amoral universe of relativity? Why would anyone believe in morality, if they believe in atheistic naturalism?
Indians were their own sovereign nations. Somewhat analogous to foreign nationals. And, were eventually made, "wards of the State". Besides, the concept of natural rights applies to any natural born Persons subject to US jurisdiction.
Except there was no universal standard for any of these because in all cases there were widely varied interpretations of all of those slogans and resistance to all of them. People treated all of those concepts subjectively. Relative consequence to the society, for one. If the thing you take from me is taxes used to protect another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are you bad? Does taking subjectively become good in that instance? Or does you supposed "universal embedded morality" make all taxes evil? No it isn't. You are not going to arbitrarily define delusion. It has a dictionary definition. Either use it or find another word. Source that proves this claim? And? Politics is a human construct. Philosophy is a human construct. Both of those things are real. Because it is useful for the survival of a social species where its members rely on each other for the population to survive perhaps? Or maybe because morality is a useful tool for maintaining a functional society, but societies live in different conditions and value different things so none of them are going to have the same moral code, thus they all use some form of subjective morality.
