Maggot Morality

A couple of things, Steve.

"If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen..."

A person does not and cannot "imply" anything simply by believing. You might infer I hold certain beliefs based on something I did or did not say. And certain beliefs/concepts may imply other beliefs/concepts (e.g. "Speech implies a speaker" or even "Your lack of belief in morality in animals implies you don't believe in evolution"), but a person doesn't imply anything just by "believing."

I made no such implication, and to the extent you made an inference to that effect, it would be incorrect. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other. Currently, I am considering the evidence.

But with all due respect, Steve, your statement is just wrong on its face. As you well know, and in fact, have acknowledged in our discussions here, there are many reputable scientists who believe firmly in evolution, yet totally reject the notion of "evolved morality." It is simply impertinent for you to suggest belief in evolution requires one to share your view of "evolved morality."

Finally, you state: "If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?"

It "has to apply to all of Nature?" Please tell me you don't seriously mean this. Honestly, I find this to be astonishing. Are you actually suggesting that in order for you to allow for the possibility of objective morality, I would have to prove that all life forms -- maggots, amoebas, beetles, apes, fish, trees, shellfish ("all of nature") -- possess some sense of morality?

Not only do I not believe this, the absence of a moral sense in "all of nature" tends toward supporting the very point I am trying to make. That is, that it is through Natural Law that man possesses a sense of morality. For you to be willing to consider this proposition, however, you are asking me to present evidence that would disprove the very point I seek to establish.

In your view, whatever differences there are between the morality of man and animals proves that morality evolved. Paradoxically, you also view the fact that certain animals seem to demonstrate behaviors that are similar to human notions of morality as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality differs from that of animals, you count as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality is similar to that of animals, you also count as proof of evolved morality.

It seems like this "evolved morality" you're describing is a very convenient idea indeed. Apparently, there is no evidence one can offer that it cannot consume.