Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximus  That's the problem, liberal democracies do not encourage vigilantiasm. |
Whoa!!! This is called civility. Vigilantism is not civil nor moral. Who has the right to commit vigilantism? It is individually subjective as is a god concept. It is also primitive. Refer to Skepticologist's preliminary conclusion of morality
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skepticologist My own preliminary conclusion is that the development or morality is entirely consistent with Darwin's theory of evolution. Most of the moral codes I can think of would serve, if observed, to perpetuate the human species because, without them, we'd end up killing each other off until the species was annihilated. |
Correct me if I am wrong, but the above definition is morally enlightening and nurtures personal responsibility while promoting a common good. Vigilantism is not a common good. This is one of the reason why I do not support the death penalty.
To answer the original question, morality is intrinsic in nature. No species are self-destructive. This could be referred to as a deist stance since we do not understand the origins of life, but it seems conducive. But the 'multiverse' theory introduces atheism and that life is a random occurrence. Regardless, life has an absolute; it strives towards self perpetuation (and human life towards progress).