[ALawPoker]

I'm not saying mugging makes him more likely to be mugged. I'm saying even he who mugs (he who makes a conscious error) has the same subconscious reaction as you and I. That tells me something.

To help you understand what I mean, I do not believe in "morals" in the way you might be thinking I mean the word. I don't believe things are right because one says they're right (or because God says they're right, etc.). I believe things are right only when you can logically deduce they are in your best interest. How can anyone (or at least, any non-theist) disagree with that? I actually hold the open and tolerant assumption of morality that I think you think is exclusive to your argument.

Now, what's best for one might not be best for another. This is because we all have different preferences. But *some* things *are* always contradictory to the (albeit ultimately subjective) value of human life and prosperity. BECAUSE HUMAN LIFE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT GOT HERE WHIMSICALLY. When you consider human life and its prosperity to be objectively good (which, if you don't, fine), then it follows that the things which logically seem to encourage it will also be objectively good.

You talk about it as if what I'm saying is some odd subjective belief. It's pretty clear. If life and prosperity is good, then the destruction of life and prosperity is bad. Killing someone or raping someone is definitely contradictory to the interest of human prosperity. So, if you want to consider it still a preference, it's the preference I *rationally* hold. It's the preference our ancestors held for as long as we could reason some sense of cause and effect; and their consequence begs our condition. Our condition, to me, is objectively good. It's what I am and it's all I have.

People DO universally agree that certain acts are "bad." Vhawk posted in politics a while ago about a study that demonstrated that (which, I forget the specifics of). But one study is not important anyways. How is it not intuitive? How is it unclear that the actions which shaped our condition are actions our condition will value? The problem comes when people screw up the application, and act with conscious bias. You seem to hold the belief that when people act with bias, this is "OK" or even "good." I really think you'll be hard pressed to find an example where someone initiates force and is more likely to be better off. You just won't find it. It's impossible. You might be able to draw up some instances where it *worked out* but never where the expectation was positive. Some mistakes get lucky. But we will not agree (at least for now), so I am essentially done with the point. Evolution is pretty powerful.

Nothing you're saying is illogical in any way. But you're maintaining an odd assumption about nature (that being that even if some action can be logically demonstrated to be to a species' best interest, that such species should not consider that action objectively good). You should read Borodog's post above about time preference. Then think about what happens if you give 10 cheeseburgers to your dog, and whether or not he'll be a happy pup 2 hours later. Then think about whether you would consider our preference to delay immediate gratification, and our conscious decision to encourage such actions, as "objectively" good, or if it's just some subjective idea that others can rationally disagree with.