Lol

But animals fall within those rules @Goblin_Slayer_Floki

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki - Animals have rules for what is acceptable and not within their species. Otherwise you'd see them all killing each other and their babies constantly.

what is not a moral agent has not moral quandaries

So your equating morality to instinct. Because any animal will kill a baby if it isnt viable or able to survive

@DanConway sorry but morals dont exsist they are drawn from collective subjective points of view.

Most morals seem to be built in due to evolution killing off the group of genetics that would cause them to be murderous to their own species.

is it evil for a bear to eat a child?

or would you consider that an evil act?

no

That becomes dsobjective

the bear has no moral agency

Subjective

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki the glue snorting crayon eater can't do that now

so it cannot do evil

@DanConway - That leads into eating other species kind of convo which is way more complicated than standard in group species morality.

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki yes, there are certain common threads that run through as a result of our biology and evolution. Things we have to believe in if we want to be able to have a society in the first place. But these are things still subject to the will of individual people. The complexity of codes of ethics that produce civilisations requires a lot more than the bare basics, such as not just killing everything. That is where we have to reason, debate and discuss morality. The only thing you could call objective is that which all social organisms on the planet abide by in order to survive. Laws of nature, if you will. And we don't live by those do we.

You stated the animal kingdom follows the same rules. Ie morality the topic

@DanConway - How do you define "moral agency".

me killing a child i have never met or know the parents even within my own species is not evil, it's just objectional to the rest of the species

they do

Actually i would argue much of what drives humans even to this day is the base instinct and law of nature

To say we don't live by rules of nature is very low IQ

because they do not have the higher thinking to think about thinking

@flyingfoxel - How do you define "evil" in general?

we do not charge a mentally impaired person with murder if he does not understand right and wrong

i don't it doesn't exist.

Evil and good are subjective at their core

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki it is yes, and is inescapable in totality. But we do not live as meerkats do, for example. We have a hell of a lot of depth to us and our societies. All of that depth is constructed by people.

@flyingfoxel - Yet those words exist and things do fit within the framework of the traits defined by the concept of evil.

yeah humans play make believe all the damn time imagine that

And people are rather animalistic. The individuals survival, procreation, and prosperation is above the whole.

Its just the ways to get that have changed

@flyingfoxel - Removing words from what you want to pay attention to does nothing but make you ignore those concepts. They still exist.

To assume we are "above" our animality, is dishonest at best

@Fitzydog I should have put "JUST by those", but I didn't account for the sentence being read by someone determined to take it out of context and ignore everything else.

Even society and human morality are based on those 3 major concepts

@flyingfoxel - For instance would it just be bad or would it be nothing at all if I lit you on fire because I like the smell of burning flesh and you are an easy source? Most people use the word evil as a super bad category of bad.

human have meta consciousness. something that animals can only show rudimentary thinking at best

the understanding that someone can know something that you do not

Like I said, we can't escape our basic nature, but we don't just live by our basic nature do we or there'd be no difference between us now and people in the fucking stone age would there