"not a moral distinction"
 

In the sense that there is no absolute or universal morality to consult or rely on.

That is: I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.

#

"...collapse the numerous posts and thoughts..."

I did no such thing...I barely commented on any one's post (except for Dana's and JB's), beyond saying you lot are on target.

Nothing I said disagrees with any of that.

You were asking where morality comes from. I answered with what i believe to be its ancient and biological origin. You didn't ask where likes and dislikes come from. And looking at a scan of your brain activity whilst you eat pizza won;t tell you why you like pizza or where those preferences come from. But a scan of your brain chemistry taken whilst you are subjected to a number of 'moral' situations or queries will show activity in particular parts of the brain. Parts of the brain which develop at particular ages and without full function, result in humans who have difficulty in connecting their actions with potential moral consequences, and in inhibiting, or self-policing their actions.

The human brain has evolved in particular ways and performs a range of functions, some of which we share with other primates, others of which we don't. Social behaviour (which some would argue is the absolute root of morality) is something we do share with primates. There is an argument that can be made which draws an evolutionary path from primate sociability, to human (and moral) sociability.

Now: unless I have said that this is all there is to the understanding of morality, or what it is to be human, then it is not reductionist to recognise this part of the whole picture.

What is reductionist is to dismiss every opinion that you don't share as either wrong, or a sign of 'laziness' in thinking.

According to what measure? Whose target? Who made you lord high arbiter of what is or is not factually correct about morality?

All you've put forward is some airy-fairy pseudo-philosphical ramblings about how all morality is essentially a construct in our own minds. Well, whoop de frikken do. Hold the front page. Ain't nobody ever had that thought before. Your understanding of morality is just that. Your understanding. It is not for you to measure how correct the rest of us are.

"Nothing I said disagrees with any of that."

Then, as I say up-thread, I misinterpreted...my apologies.

#

"Who made you lord high arbiter of what is or is not factually correct about morality?"

No one. This is thread of opinion (having one, defending one, disagreeing with others)...sorry if you didn't get that.

#

"Your understanding of morality is just that. Your understanding. It is not for you to measure how correct the rest of us are."

Yes, exactly...as I say up-thread, 'I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.'

This can be said for my opinion as to the 'source' of morality as well...sorry if you didn't get that.

Then referring to some posters as being 'on the money' or 'on target' is perhaps just some unfortunate phrasing. It certainly gives the impression that you are sitting in judgement as to which of the opinions expressed in this thread are the 'correct' ones.

"unfortunate phrasing"
 

Indeed...what I should have said, 'Many of the responses in this thread (with the exception of two, and, before it degraded into a 'sexy party') are right on the money, in my opinion, so I'll leave those be.'

As this 'is' an opinion thread, it seemed redundant to write 'in my opinion' as preface or justification for things posted here.

My mistake.

Ohhhh, secksy party. Me love you long time. Thread drift makes me HOT. pant pant drool drool. :cool:

:p

All threads in the Cellar are 'opinion' threads, essentially.

IMHO, my username contains the word "sex"; therefore, I should be the sole arbiter of morality in this thread. I decree that henceforth we shall live and let live excepting that DanaC and JBKlyde shall not be permitted to have children together since the resulting offspring would be genetically predisposed to morally cancel itself out and any morality is better than no morality at all, IMHO.

Dana and I shall splice our eggs (or somesuch) and have perfect babies.
To be raised by Clod.

And here starts a new wave of evolution.

Yea, the Morning Show goes on ! Past noon no less. Yea again :D

That trinity would give rise to the most important woman in the universe. Brilliant!

That's exactly right! 100%! Truth!

This thread is lousy with shitmen and shitwomen.