Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
Moral is always vaguely defined. I sort of prefer definition that has scientific bite, namely those we can verify.
I like some definition with scientific bites, namely, something that’s disprovable. Arguing over things that’s not disprovable seems to go nowhere isn’t it?
I am not saying valid moral imperatives do not exist. I see that defining moral that way goes nowhere and useless to discuss.
However, defining moral as we observe pecking order in chicken shed some light on the true nature of morality.
I see that moral simply evolves and coevolves with us.
Another reason why I do not like to see valid moral imperatives is because most of the argument behind it is actually bullshit.
Moral comes out of profit. Here is a sample: http://freemarketforever.
When it comes for moral, people simply lie on the “why” I support this. Kind of expected. Why argue with liars? Why not understand what he truly want and why he lies and why he choose that lie? The latter make more sense to me.