วีดีโอ

Thank you for your comment and I appreciate your input. However, if I may kindly confirm, were you implying that "shared humanity" has to be in the equation for us to know what moral principles are favourable or unfavourable?

I don't think it is. I am unsure what you mean. Our shared humanity factors into how we see shared moral principles among humans. We likely have these morals because they promote cooperation.

@@Chidds Thank you for your comment. My apologies for my lack of clarity regarding my comment. By the way. if I may ask, what epistemology to you hold? Going back, I guess what I was trying to understand is, is human convention or the gathering of people, or shared humanity necessary to determine what moral absolutes are. Yes, I do agree with you, brother, that because of shared humanity and the promotion of cooperation, we can know moral principles, but what is our basis, when our type of shared humanity got to the point of cooperation, to say that the morality that resulted to such cooperation is morally good or morally favourable?

​@@pilgrimstoriespodcast I believe our knowledge of the world comes from exploring it. Acquiring any knowledge and understanding is a grand process of trial and error. As our understanding and technical abilities refine and advance, that process appears easier. To make an analogy, we are like a group that wakes up in a game with no prior knowledge, and no revealed instructions. We are left to figure out how to play by reflecting on how the game plays out over time. I do not accept the notion of moral absolutes. There is a distinct lack of evidence for the idea. Typically, what proponents point to is human intuition and shared principles across cultures, but these are also (and arguably best) explained through natural means that suggests morality a blend of objective principles and subjective values constructed through the socialisation of every individual. Our shared humanity accounts for the common moral principles observed across different cultures. My point about morality promoting cooperation does not concern how we come to know moral principles but rather highlights a key element to the driving force behind these principles being present in humans and other species. Cooperative traits are beneficial to the survival of humans and other species. Therefore, such attributes would be naturally selected and innate within are biological makeup. Are you asking if our naturally acquired morals are good in accordance with an absolute standard independent of humanity? I do not recognise the actual existence of such a standard. It makes sense that human have the illusion, but it cannot be substantiated.

I do understand that the discovery of the world requires exploration. For example, Christopher Columbus explored and discovered America. From observing your comments, it seems that you are an atheist for you have been mentioning a lot of about the lines of survival of the fittest. And also, to take your analogy, if you’re using a game analogy, then there has to be a game creator, right?

When comes to morality, when we come to the point of discovering what is morally unacceptable, then who is is to say that rape unacceptably wrong? Without an absolute standard for morality, any claims against such crimes saying they are wrong would not have any objective meaning. When you mention something about blend of objective and subjective principles, how can these things blend of someone says murdering innocent people are wrong with another who says otherwise? How can a circle of people blend in with a group of people who says that holocaust was wrong? 
 Who is to say that the moral inference of the shared humanity of Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist was acceptable when they decided to crash the planes into the twin towers? They did share their humanity that lead to a cooperative act of terrorism, didn’t they? Did they cooperative traits lead to the survival of humans? Can we say that what they did was okay because their actions where subjective? Can people who opposed their action blend in with those who promote Jihad? You mention something about not having enough evidence to moral absolutes. If heartless, drug addict crimal barged into your house and stole all your valuable, would you react negatively or positively? You see, your NEGATIVE REACTION towards such crimes is an evidence in and of itself the with which you can draw a line of difference that something is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. You cannot really say that love is better than hate; you won’t really have a basis that the acts of Mother Teresa is better than Hitler. Again, without moral absolutes, you are left with a mere opinion that what the thief has done was wrong. Finally, when you said, “I do not accept the notion of moral absolutes,” therefore you are saying that there is no such thing as moral absolutes. Are you absolutely sure about your opinion? 
 Thank you for your comments and I would like to say that I appreciate and respect you as a person because you are created in God’s image; a creation with dignity, value and worth. I also value your opinions. I have learned a lot from you and has given me more insights so that I can better represent your side in proving the The existence of God. God bless you, my friend. And stay well!