Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

No, I don't want to talk about God, but thanks for asking.

Okay. Then show me a subjective moral imperative, instead.

I must always try to behave with integrity.

Why "must" you?

[Harbal]

Okay. Then show me a subjective moral imperative, instead.

I must always try to behave with integrity.

Why "must" you?

Because I expect it of myself. That's just how I feel, but I can give no logical reason to explain it. I also think it is what God would want, if he existed.

[Age]

I must always try to behave with integrity.

Why "must" you?

Because I expect it of myself. That's just how I feel, but I can give no logical reason to explain it. I also think it is what God would want, if he existed.

Just so you become aware God does NOT expect you to 'try to' behave with integrity. God KNOWS you have the ability to just behave, and to just behave, with integrity always.

Also, if you would also like to become AWARE OF, and KNOW and UNDERSTAND, the 'logical reason' of HOW and WHY 'that feeling' exits WITHIN, then that can also be EXPLAINED here.

[Harbal]

Why "must" you?

Because I expect it of myself. That's just how I feel, but I can give no logical reason to explain it. I also think it is what God would want, if he existed.

Just so you become aware God does NOT expect you to 'try to' behave with integrity. God KNOWS you have the ability to just behave, and to just behave, with integrity always.

Also, if you would also like to become AWARE OF, and KNOW and UNDERSTAND, the 'logical reason' of HOW and WHY 'that feeling' exits WITHIN, then that can also be EXPLAINED here.

I would be interested in anything you have to say about it.

[Age]

"Opinions" are true or false.

Blue is a better colour than orange, shrimps taste horrible, short hair looks better than long hair, Tuesday afternoon is the worst time of the week.

Could you tell me which of those opinions are true, and which are false?

Those are merely opinions of taste.

What does 'blue' and 'orange' 'taste' like?

In fact can you tell us what 'shrimp' 'tastes' like?

Unlike opinions of fact, they don't have to be agreed upon.

But absolutely NOTHING 'has to' be 'agreed with'.

Or, do you BELIEVE that 'you', human beings' do NOT have the FREEDOM to CHOOSE here?

I actually can't believe you didn't know that already. But okay.

'your' ATTEMPTS at CONDESCENSION "Immanuel can" seem somewhat never-ending.

You'll also notice that they are all markedly trivial opinions...which should tell you something about which kind of opinion matters.

Are 'you' even AWARE "Immanuel can" that some of 'your' so-called 'opinions of facts' are NOT ACTUAL Facts AT ALL?

Also, even 'your' OWN made-up term and/or phrase here "immanuel can", 'opinion of fact', is NOT even AGREED WITH. As, as 'it' stands, 'it' appears as an OXYMORON and/or SELF-CONTRADICTORY term/phrase.

So, does 'this' mean that your claim/s here are just your OWN 'markedly trivial opinion/s ONLY?

[Age]

Because I expect it of myself. That's just how I feel, but I can give no logical reason to explain it. I also think it is what God would want, if he existed.

Just so you become aware God does NOT expect you to 'try to' behave with integrity. God KNOWS you have the ability to just behave, and to just behave, with integrity always.

Also, if you would also like to become AWARE OF, and KNOW and UNDERSTAND, the 'logical reason' of HOW and WHY 'that feeling' exits WITHIN, then that can also be EXPLAINED here.

I would be interested in anything you have to say about it.

If you would REALLY be interested in anything I have to say about 'it', then discovering what 'it' is, exactly, first will help me tremendously in beginning to say anything about 'it'.

[Harbal]

Just so you become aware God does NOT expect you to 'try to' behave with integrity. God KNOWS you have the ability to just behave, and to just behave, with integrity always.

Also, if you would also like to become AWARE OF, and KNOW and UNDERSTAND, the 'logical reason' of HOW and WHY 'that feeling' exits WITHIN, then that can also be EXPLAINED here.

I would be interested in anything you have to say about it.

If you would REALLY be interested in anything I have to say about 'it', then discovering what 'it' is, exactly, first will help me tremendously in beginning to say anything about 'it'.

"It" is the personal desire to behave morally well, which most human beings seem to have to some extent, albeit some much less than others.

[Immanuel Can]

I must always try to behave with integrity.

Why "must" you?

Because I expect it of myself. That's just how I feel, but I can give no logical reason to explain it. I also think it is what God would want, if he existed.

But when your subjective feeling about that changes, what makes you in any way duty-bound to do the 'right' thing (whatever you conceive that to be), as opposed to the merely expedient thing, the thing that gets you the next advantage you perceive to be available?

So, for example, perhaps it suits both your feelings and your expectations that you swear to love your spouse "until death do you part," because it sounds romantic today, and appropriate to the occasion of a wedding; but when the next woman appears, and is more enticing than your spouse, what informs you that you would be wrong to break that vow and seize the new opportunity? After all, both feelings and situations now compel you to different allegiances, don't they?

[Age]

Why "must" you?

Because I expect it of myself. That's just how I feel, but I can give no logical reason to explain it. I also think it is what God would want, if he existed.

But when your subjective feeling about that changes, what makes you in any way duty-bound to do the 'right' thing (whatever you conceive that to be), as opposed to the merely expedient thing, the thing that gets you the next advantage you perceive to be available?

So, for example, perhaps it suits both your feelings and your expectations that you swear to love your spouse "until death do you part," because it sounds romantic today, and appropriate to the occasion of a wedding; but when the next woman appears, and is more enticing than your spouse, what informs you that you would be wrong to break that vow and seize the new opportunity?

As someone in this forum has already stated, and as someone might say here,

'I actually can't believe you didn't know that already', "Immanuel can".

After all, both feelings and situations now compel you to different allegiances, don't they?

[Harbal]

Why "must" you?

Because I expect it of myself. That's just how I feel, but I can give no logical reason to explain it. I also think it is what God would want, if he existed.

But when your subjective feeling about that changes, what makes you in any way duty-bound to do the 'right' thing (whatever you conceive that to be), as opposed to the merely expedient thing, the thing that gets you the next advantage you perceive to be available?

You asked for a subjective moral imperative, and I gave you one. Our moral outlook does often change as we go through life; mine certainly has.

So, for example, perhaps it suits both your feelings and your expectations that you swear to love your spouse "until death do you part," because it sounds romantic today, and appropriate to the occasion of a wedding; but when the next woman appears, and is more enticing than your spouse, what informs you that you would be wrong to break that vow and seize the new opportunity? After all, both feelings and situations now compel you to different allegiances, don't they?

Some people do behave like that, and some don't, but I can't tell you why.

[Age]

I would be interested in anything you have to say about it.

If you would REALLY be interested in anything I have to say about 'it', then discovering what 'it' is, exactly, first will help me tremendously in beginning to say anything about 'it'.

"It" is the personal desire to behave morally well, which most human beings seem to have to some extent, albeit some much less than others.

'your' USE of the 'personal' word here "harbal" is quite 'appropriate'.

See, the so-called 'personal' 'desire' 'to behave', what you call, 'morally well', is an in-built 'desire'. Which, when FULLY UNDERSTAND, is very closely related to, or associated with, what I will call here, 'thee internal Knowing'. The USE of the 'thee' word is to signal that there is ONLY One Knowing, which is WITHIN EVERY 'thing', and 'Known', although unconsciously, by EVERY one, from the youngest to the oldest. 'This Knowing', however, gets or becomes 'overridden' by the 'learned thoughts', along the way.

'Thee, inner, Knowing' exists as One WITH Life, Itself, and is thee 'True Driver' of doing what is Right, and GOOD, for ALL, and NOT just SOME. Thee 'True Driver' is 'the desire' to ALWAYS 'behave morally well', or to just DO what IS GOOD and Right, in Life.

Now, contrary to the popular BELIEF, in the days, when this is being written, ALL 'material things' ARE, ACTUALLY, ALIVE, and LIVING. Therefore, when the 'desire' to 'behave moral well' is in regards to ALL and EVERY 'thing', and NOT just what one has 'personally' 'grown up' learning to love and care for. Which is; ONLY SOME 'things'.

An example of the, internal or inner, 'desire' to 'behave morally well' towards ALL, and NOT just some, can be explained through the USE of 'children'. Now, although I do NOT like to ASSUME ANY 'thing' I will here SAY and SUGGEST that 'you', "harbal", would NOT allow 'your child' 'die' from starvation, right? (But if I am Wrong, then just let me KNOW. I do NOT 'judge' in ANY way.) But, for the sake of 'carrying on' I will ASSUME that 'you' would NOT, in this example so far. I will also suggest that 'you' would NOT allow 'ANY child' die that was living in 'your home', from needing some food, right? I would also go on to suggest that if 'ANY young child' was sitting on 'your front or back door step', then 'you' would NOT allow 'them' to die, from needing some food, correct? Or, what about if 'a young child' was at the front of 'your house' on the side-walk, then 'you' would NOT allow 'them' to die, from needing some food neither, true? But what about if 'A young child' was at the end 'your street', or in the next neighbourhood, would 'you', do 'you', allow 'them' to die from needing food? What about on the other side of the country that 'you' live in, or what about in another country, do 'you' allow 'them' to die, just from the need of some food?

In other words, WHEN DID the 'desire' to 'behave morally well', for ALL, END, and WHEN DOES the 'desire' to 'behave morally well' STOP, FOR ALL, but which STILL EXISTS BUT ONLY FOR a SELECT FEW?

Now, I USUALLY do NOT like to PRESUME "another's" OWN ANSWER/S, and so I, USUALLY, ALLOW 'them' to ANSWER FOR and BY "themselves". But, here I WILL provide AN ANSWER, and then WAIT to SEE how 'that ANSWER' 'corresponds' WITH 'yours'.

The 'desire' to 'behave morally well' STOPPED and ENDED with the GAINING of 'thoughts', and probably with the gaining of, what could be called, 'selective thoughts' or 'selective thinking'. (I am NOT 'over editing' what I am writing here now.) See, as a very young child there is NO 'there is ONLY a select few people/individuals/things that I care about' perspective, nor 'world view', however, very young children are TAUGHT and 'GROW UP' to BELIEVE 'things' like 'family first', AND, 'I MUST LOVE, CARE FOR, and PROTECT 'my family' and/or 'friends', which is all well and good. However, the 'size' of 'family/friends' can become SO NARROWED, and/or SO SELECTIVE, as 'time' goes on, that the 'desire' to 'behave morally well' ONLY EXISTS for a VERY SELECT FEW. Which is Truly ABSURD and NONSENSICAL in the REAL SCHEME of 'things'.

This 'desire to behave morally well' IS WITHIN ABSOLUTELY EVERY one. However, BECAUSE OF, and through, 'personal experiences' who, and what, one has 'personally' 'grown up' to 'behave morally well' TOWARDS and FOR is VARIED. And, the amount of VARIATION depends, SOLELY, upon the amount of VARIED 'personal experiences' among 'you', people.

AND, the reason WHY 'you', adult 'people', 'see' the 'desire to behave morally well' LESS IN some and NOT in "others" is SOLELY BECAUSE of 'past personal experiences'. SEE, what one might 'see' as "another" have LESS of A 'desire to behave morally well' is usually BECAUSE "the other" just has a DIFFERENT 'personal preference' as to who, and/or what, 'they' have a 'desire to behave morally well' TOWARDS and/or FOR.

ONCE AGAIN, ANY or ALL of what I SAY and CLAIM here CAN, and WILL, BE EXPLAINED, and UNDERSTOOD, in IRREFUTABLE Factual and FULL DETAIL.

[Harbal]

If you would REALLY be interested in anything I have to say about 'it', then discovering what 'it' is, exactly, first will help me tremendously in beginning to say anything about 'it'.

"It" is the personal desire to behave morally well, which most human beings seem to have to some extent, albeit some much less than others.

'your' USE of the 'personal' word here "harbal" is quite 'appropriate'.

See, the so-called 'personal' 'desire' 'to behave', what you call, 'morally well', is an in-built 'desire'. Which, when FULLY UNDERSTAND, is very closely related to, or associated with, what I will call here, 'thee internal Knowing'. The USE of the 'thee' word is to signal that there is ONLY One Knowing, which is WITHIN EVERY 'thing', and 'Known', although unconsciously, by EVERY one, from the youngest to the oldest. 'This Knowing', however, gets or becomes 'overridden' by the 'learned thoughts', along the way.

'Thee, inner, Knowing' exists as One WITH Life, Itself, and is thee 'True Driver' of doing what is Right, and GOOD, for ALL, and NOT just SOME. Thee 'True Driver' is 'the desire' to ALWAYS 'behave morally well', or to just DO what IS GOOD and Right, in Life.

Now, contrary to the popular BELIEF, in the days, when this is being written, ALL 'material things' ARE, ACTUALLY, ALIVE, and LIVING. Therefore, when the 'desire' to 'behave moral well' is in regards to ALL and EVERY 'thing', and NOT just what one has 'personally' 'grown up' learning to love and care for. Which is; ONLY SOME 'things'.

An example of the, internal or inner, 'desire' to 'behave morally well' towards ALL, and NOT just some, can be explained through the USE of 'children'. Now, although I do NOT like to ASSUME ANY 'thing' I will here SAY and SUGGEST that 'you', "harbal", would NOT allow 'your child' 'die' from starvation, right? (But if I am Wrong, then just let me KNOW. I do NOT 'judge' in ANY way.) But, for the sake of 'carrying on' I will ASSUME that 'you' would NOT, in this example so far. I will also suggest that 'you' would NOT allow 'ANY child' die that was living in 'your home', from needing some food, right? I would also go on to suggest that if 'ANY young child' was sitting on 'your front or back door step', then 'you' would NOT allow 'them' to die, from needing some food, correct? Or, what about if 'a young child' was at the front of 'your house' on the side-walk, then 'you' would NOT allow 'them' to die, from needing some food neither, true? But what about if 'A young child' was at the end 'your street', or in the next neighbourhood, would 'you', do 'you', allow 'them' to die from needing food? What about on the other side of the country that 'you' live in, or what about in another country, do 'you' allow 'them' to die, just from the need of some food?

In other words, WHEN DID the 'desire' to 'behave morally well', for ALL, END, and WHEN DOES the 'desire' to 'behave morally well' STOP, FOR ALL, but which STILL EXISTS BUT ONLY FOR a SELECT FEW?

Now, I USUALLY do NOT like to PRESUME "another's" OWN ANSWER/S, and so I, USUALLY, ALLOW 'them' to ANSWER FOR and BY "themselves". But, here I WILL provide AN ANSWER, and then WAIT to SEE how 'that ANSWER' 'corresponds' WITH 'yours'.

The 'desire' to 'behave morally well' STOPPED and ENDED with the GAINING of 'thoughts', and probably with the gaining of, what could be called, 'selective thoughts' or 'selective thinking'. (I am NOT 'over editing' what I am writing here now.) See, as a very young child there is NO 'there is ONLY a select few people/individuals/things that I care about' perspective, nor 'world view', however, very young children are TAUGHT and 'GROW UP' to BELIEVE 'things' like 'family first', AND, 'I MUST LOVE, CARE FOR, and PROTECT 'my family' and/or 'friends', which is all well and good. However, the 'size' of 'family/friends' can become SO NARROWED, and/or SO SELECTIVE, as 'time' goes on, that the 'desire' to 'behave morally well' ONLY EXISTS for a VERY SELECT FEW. Which is Truly ABSURD and NONSENSICAL in the REAL SCHEME of 'things'.

This 'desire to behave morally well' IS WITHIN ABSOLUTELY EVERY one. However, BECAUSE OF, and through, 'personal experiences' who, and what, one has 'personally' 'grown up' to 'behave morally well' TOWARDS and FOR is VARIED. And, the amount of VARIATION depends, SOLELY, upon the amount of VARIED 'personal experiences' among 'you', people.

AND, the reason WHY 'you', adult 'people', 'see' the 'desire to behave morally well' LESS IN some and NOT in "others" is SOLELY BECAUSE of 'past personal experiences'. SEE, what one might 'see' as "another" have LESS of A 'desire to behave morally well' is usually BECAUSE "the other" just has a DIFFERENT 'personal preference' as to who, and/or what, 'they' have a 'desire to behave morally well' TOWARDS and/or FOR.

ONCE AGAIN, ANY or ALL of what I SAY and CLAIM here CAN, and WILL, BE EXPLAINED, and UNDERSTOOD, in IRREFUTABLE Factual and FULL DETAIL.

I see morality as something human beings developed along their evolutionary journey. I suspect that in more primitive times moral consideration was only given to members of one’s own group, or tribe, but we live very different lives now, and our moral behaviour has adapted accordingly.

I don’t think we have any innate programming that inclines us to behave morally well towards other people in general; quite the opposite, in fact. I think there is reason to believe that human instinct caused us to show extreme brutality towards “outsiders” in earlier times, and we are basically still the same animal now. Biological evolution hasn’t changed us much over the last two or three hundred thousand years, but our social evolution over that period has progressed immensely, and our moral and ethical behaviour has adjusted to accommodate it.

In short, I think morality is just a biological function that adapts according to our social environment.

[Age]

"It" is the personal desire to behave morally well, which most human beings seem to have to some extent, albeit some much less than others.

'your' USE of the 'personal' word here "harbal" is quite 'appropriate'.

See, the so-called 'personal' 'desire' 'to behave', what you call, 'morally well', is an in-built 'desire'. Which, when FULLY UNDERSTAND, is very closely related to, or associated with, what I will call here, 'thee internal Knowing'. The USE of the 'thee' word is to signal that there is ONLY One Knowing, which is WITHIN EVERY 'thing', and 'Known', although unconsciously, by EVERY one, from the youngest to the oldest. 'This Knowing', however, gets or becomes 'overridden' by the 'learned thoughts', along the way.

'Thee, inner, Knowing' exists as One WITH Life, Itself, and is thee 'True Driver' of doing what is Right, and GOOD, for ALL, and NOT just SOME. Thee 'True Driver' is 'the desire' to ALWAYS 'behave morally well', or to just DO what IS GOOD and Right, in Life.

Now, contrary to the popular BELIEF, in the days, when this is being written, ALL 'material things' ARE, ACTUALLY, ALIVE, and LIVING. Therefore, when the 'desire' to 'behave moral well' is in regards to ALL and EVERY 'thing', and NOT just what one has 'personally' 'grown up' learning to love and care for. Which is; ONLY SOME 'things'.

An example of the, internal or inner, 'desire' to 'behave morally well' towards ALL, and NOT just some, can be explained through the USE of 'children'. Now, although I do NOT like to ASSUME ANY 'thing' I will here SAY and SUGGEST that 'you', "harbal", would NOT allow 'your child' 'die' from starvation, right? (But if I am Wrong, then just let me KNOW. I do NOT 'judge' in ANY way.) But, for the sake of 'carrying on' I will ASSUME that 'you' would NOT, in this example so far. I will also suggest that 'you' would NOT allow 'ANY child' die that was living in 'your home', from needing some food, right? I would also go on to suggest that if 'ANY young child' was sitting on 'your front or back door step', then 'you' would NOT allow 'them' to die, from needing some food, correct? Or, what about if 'a young child' was at the front of 'your house' on the side-walk, then 'you' would NOT allow 'them' to die, from needing some food neither, true? But what about if 'A young child' was at the end 'your street', or in the next neighbourhood, would 'you', do 'you', allow 'them' to die from needing food? What about on the other side of the country that 'you' live in, or what about in another country, do 'you' allow 'them' to die, just from the need of some food?

In other words, WHEN DID the 'desire' to 'behave morally well', for ALL, END, and WHEN DOES the 'desire' to 'behave morally well' STOP, FOR ALL, but which STILL EXISTS BUT ONLY FOR a SELECT FEW?

Now, I USUALLY do NOT like to PRESUME "another's" OWN ANSWER/S, and so I, USUALLY, ALLOW 'them' to ANSWER FOR and BY "themselves". But, here I WILL provide AN ANSWER, and then WAIT to SEE how 'that ANSWER' 'corresponds' WITH 'yours'.

The 'desire' to 'behave morally well' STOPPED and ENDED with the GAINING of 'thoughts', and probably with the gaining of, what could be called, 'selective thoughts' or 'selective thinking'. (I am NOT 'over editing' what I am writing here now.) See, as a very young child there is NO 'there is ONLY a select few people/individuals/things that I care about' perspective, nor 'world view', however, very young children are TAUGHT and 'GROW UP' to BELIEVE 'things' like 'family first', AND, 'I MUST LOVE, CARE FOR, and PROTECT 'my family' and/or 'friends', which is all well and good. However, the 'size' of 'family/friends' can become SO NARROWED, and/or SO SELECTIVE, as 'time' goes on, that the 'desire' to 'behave morally well' ONLY EXISTS for a VERY SELECT FEW. Which is Truly ABSURD and NONSENSICAL in the REAL SCHEME of 'things'.

This 'desire to behave morally well' IS WITHIN ABSOLUTELY EVERY one. However, BECAUSE OF, and through, 'personal experiences' who, and what, one has 'personally' 'grown up' to 'behave morally well' TOWARDS and FOR is VARIED. And, the amount of VARIATION depends, SOLELY, upon the amount of VARIED 'personal experiences' among 'you', people.

AND, the reason WHY 'you', adult 'people', 'see' the 'desire to behave morally well' LESS IN some and NOT in "others" is SOLELY BECAUSE of 'past personal experiences'. SEE, what one might 'see' as "another" have LESS of A 'desire to behave morally well' is usually BECAUSE "the other" just has a DIFFERENT 'personal preference' as to who, and/or what, 'they' have a 'desire to behave morally well' TOWARDS and/or FOR.

ONCE AGAIN, ANY or ALL of what I SAY and CLAIM here CAN, and WILL, BE EXPLAINED, and UNDERSTOOD, in IRREFUTABLE Factual and FULL DETAIL.

I see morality as something human beings developed along their evolutionary journey. I suspect that in more primitive times moral consideration was only given to members of one’s own group, or tribe, but we live very different lives now, and our moral behaviour has adapted accordingly.

I don’t think we have any innate programming that inclines us to behave morally well towards other people in general; quite the opposite, in fact. I think there is reason to believe that human instinct caused us to show extreme brutality towards “outsiders” in earlier times, and we are basically still the same animal now. Biological evolution hasn’t changed us much over the last two or three hundred thousand years, but our social evolution over that period has progressed immensely, and our moral and ethical behaviour has adjusted to accommodate it.

In short, I think morality is just a biological function that adapts according to our social environment.

Okay, but what 'you' 'see', 'suspect', 'think', or 'do not think', may, or may not, be true is NOT necessarily true AT ALL, right?

By the way, I am NOT, REALLY, interested in ONLY what 'you', human beings, THINK may or may not be true, ESPECIALLY when what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True here is ALREADY KNOWN.

By the way. WHY would 'you' THINK that there is a reason to BELIEVE the 'thing' that 'you' do above here?

Also, WHY did the 'past, to 'you', human animal', supposedly, NOT have the 'desire' to 'behave morally well', YET the 'human animal' known here as "harbal", supposedly, has 'it'?

[Harbal]

I see morality as something human beings developed along their evolutionary journey. I suspect that in more primitive times moral consideration was only given to members of one’s own group, or tribe, but we live very different lives now, and our moral behaviour has adapted accordingly.

I don’t think we have any innate programming that inclines us to behave morally well towards other people in general; quite the opposite, in fact. I think there is reason to believe that human instinct caused us to show extreme brutality towards “outsiders” in earlier times, and we are basically still the same animal now. Biological evolution hasn’t changed us much over the last two or three hundred thousand years, but our social evolution over that period has progressed immensely, and our moral and ethical behaviour has adjusted to accommodate it.

In short, I think morality is just a biological function that adapts according to our social environment.

Okay, but what 'you' 'see', 'suspect', 'think', or 'do not think', may, or may not, be true is NOT necessarily true AT ALL, right?

Of course.

By the way. WHY would 'you' THINK that there is a reason to BELIEVE the 'thing' that 'you' do above here?

I have just put the various bits of sketchy knowledge I have about evolution, history, animal behaviour etc. together and come up with a story that makes sense to me. I don't have the patience to write out all my thoughts relating to the outline I have described, and I doubt that anyone would take it seriously if I did.

Also, WHY did the 'past, to 'you', human animal', supposedly, NOT have the 'desire' to 'behave morally well', YET the 'human animal' known here as "harbal", supposedly, has 'it'?

I think human behaviour can vary vastly according to the time, place and culture we find ourselves in. Had I been born in the stone age, I daresay my attitude towards human beings outside of my social group would have been quite savage.

[Age]

I see morality as something human beings developed along their evolutionary journey. I suspect that in more primitive times moral consideration was only given to members of one’s own group, or tribe, but we live very different lives now, and our moral behaviour has adapted accordingly.

I don’t think we have any innate programming that inclines us to behave morally well towards other people in general; quite the opposite, in fact. I think there is reason to believe that human instinct caused us to show extreme brutality towards “outsiders” in earlier times, and we are basically still the same animal now. Biological evolution hasn’t changed us much over the last two or three hundred thousand years, but our social evolution over that period has progressed immensely, and our moral and ethical behaviour has adjusted to accommodate it.

In short, I think morality is just a biological function that adapts according to our social environment.

Okay, but what 'you' 'see', 'suspect', 'think', or 'do not think', may, or may not, be true is NOT necessarily true AT ALL, right?

Of course.

By the way. WHY would 'you' THINK that there is a reason to BELIEVE the 'thing' that 'you' do above here?

I have just put the various bits of sketchy knowledge I have about evolution, history, animal behaviour etc. together and come up with a story that makes sense to me.

Okay, but there MUST be some 'thing', in particular, which has made 'you' THINK that there is 'reason', itself, to BELIEVE that 'human instinct caused 'you', human beings, to show extreme brutality towards, so-called, "outsiders" in earlier, to 'your', times. I am just CURIOUS and INTERESTED to FIND OUT and KNOW WHY 'you' would THINK such a 'thing' as 'this' here. Which 'you' also THINK that 'you', human beings, in the day and age when this is being written, are STILL the SAME 'animal'.

I don't have the patience to write out all my thoughts relating to the outline I have described, and I doubt that anyone would take it seriously if I did.

1. If you were to be Honest, then I WOULD take what you said SERIOUSLY.

2. Surely it would NOT take you long AT ALL to just write the reason WHY 'you' THINK there is 'reason' to BELIEVE that human instinct caused 'you', human beings, to show EXTREME brutality towards "outsiders", in so-called 'earlier times', and which 'you' THINK or BELIEVE that 'you' are, basically, STILL the SAME 'animal' now.

Also, WHY did the 'past, to 'you', human animal', supposedly, NOT have the 'desire' to 'behave morally well', YET the 'human animal' known here as "harbal", supposedly, has 'it'?

I think human behaviour can vary vastly according to the time, place and culture we find ourselves in.

SURELY, 'you' do NOT 'think' 'this'. Is it NOT JUST BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, TO 'you', that 'human behavior' DOES ACTUALLY VARY VASTLY according to the time, place, and culture that 'you', human beings, find "yourselves" in?

It IS an IRREFUTABLE Fact is 'it' NOT?

Had I been born in the stone age, I daresay my attitude towards human beings outside of my social group would have been quite savage.

WHY?

What would even LEAD 'you' TO BEGIN TO ASSUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?

AND, even if what 'you' SAY here was even REMOTELY true, then WHY do 'you' ALSO SAY that 'you', human beings, are STILL the SAME animal 'now'?