So it's just my OPINION that murder destabilizes the safety of a social group?
You look at morality for its
utility: i.e., a more stable society, better property values, less crime.
You can get that with communist China. They are a stable society, with a much lower crime rate that the United States. I was impressed with the clean streets, low crime rate, "stability" of society in the dictatorship of Belarus.
I do not think
utility is the way to measure morality, at best it's a secondary benefit.
I have told you this before, please don't make me keep repeating it: I believe the moral conscience when cultivated points you to a belief that there is an
inherent and innate value to human life, beyond the collection of quarks and electrons that make us up. The belief that humans are endowed with an innate dignity and value independent of molecules and biochemical reactions is the reason an objective moral truth makes sense to me.
I don't think utilitarianism really is the ultimate standard to measure up to. Utility is based on self-interest.
But really that's all YOUR morality is as well. You claim there's some universal truth but you don't know that. It's all your opinion. Even if you don't think it is.
I never said it was anything other than my opinion, one that I believe to be true.
But my opinion seems to make you angry and agitated.
I really don't care if you are a moral relativist, or a strict utilitarian. It doesn't bother me.
Yeah. And in those societies they were considered quite moral.
Ergo: there is no objective morality.
No. The moral conscience can be appealed to and persuaded.
We see throughout history and our life experiences that once the religious concept of the innate value of human life takes hold and is cultivated, it manifests as a powerful moral truth.
Once they are inculcated to a Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Buddhist ethical framework, you really don't see people reverting
back to cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice. The moral "highway" is not a two-way street.
