"Meadowlark" > wrote in message
...

>> ... if we can't agree on what a set of morals is, then we aren't going to
>> agree on the scientific evidence for or against.
HINT: science is a method of studying Nature, in the attempt to
elucidate the underlying Laws by mathematical expressions.
"Morals"/ethics are highly-variable, idiosyncratic, temporary, belief
systems of local tribes of humans, and as such are neither natural, nor able
to be investigated by the scientific method.

> Basic moral principles are much the same throughout
> human cultures.
Nonsense, the moral argument against killing humans is conveniently
abandoned when there is a "moral obligation" to start a war, colonize
others' lands, or enslave people.

> For example, there is no human culture that I
> know of which considers cowardice or cruelty a virtue, but
> different cultures, and individuals within cultures, differ on
> how cruelty is defined, as we see here on TPA.
Yes, and since there is no objective set of ethics/morals, individual
sets of ethics are idiosyncratic, there can be no reasonable discussion
about them.

> ... actions are only
> moral if they are supported by moral reasoning -- that is, if the
> person acting can say why his action is moral, or why it follows
> some moral principle ("acting for the right reason").
Hitler was operating out of -his- moral principles, so what?

> What Sapontzis says is that if a being acts by
> intent, and acts in a way generally considered moral, he is acting
> morally.
"Generally considered ", by whom?? The local tribe that has a different
set of morals than the neighboring tribe??

> " ... acts can be moral actions,
> for they accord with accepted moral norms and, consequently, do
> not require justification to be moral."
So, they are idiosyncratic and do not apply to humans, in general.

> How rights are defined and applied is definitely
> open to varied interpretation.
Again, since there is no objective definition of "rights", they are
highly variable, locally-idiosyncratic, and thus a waste of time trying to
discuss them in a rational framework that simply does not exist.

Laurie