If secular scientists band together and decide?

Question

that the return to animal behavior is required for mankind to survive - live and let die, only the strong survive.
No more human dignity, moral accountability, and universal human rights. What basis would you have for rejecting it?

Why wouldn't they come to this conclusion when there are more people than resources.
You may be moral but why ought you be moral?

What accounts for humans’ being moral or having worth and having moral obligations when they are the result of the same impersonal forces that produced rats and hyenas?

So was Hitler wrong because it was a bad idea or because it was a violation of the sanctity of life, and human rights.

Answer 1

Ever read 'Lord of the Flies'?

All it takes is being thrust into the right situation to enable that process.

Answer 2

That we have surely evolved our ethics and morals to a point that that kind of action is unthinkable and that there must be some other way to avoid such an outcome.

I suppose if human population got so out of hand that people needed to be killed in order for others to survive then the weakest might go to the wall, but at the same time, how could there be NO other option. Sounds like a cool sci-fi though!

Answer 3

There's no need for a return, we are ALREADY abiding by animal behavior.

Morals are necessary for survival for species that live in social groups--like people. Societies are not stable if they don't have rules on which everyone agrees. When you look around the world, do you see atheists running rampant and religious people being peaceful? Just now, you see religious people blowing each other up (right now it's Muslims, but let's not forget Northern Ireland or the Balkans) and secularists calling for rational dialogue.

The religious hold firm to this idea that they would have no goodness if it were not "given" them by religion. You insult only yourself by believing that.

Answer 4

Moral accountability is an integral part of the behavior of human beings as animals, and "secular scientists banding together" implies an agnostic or anti-religious agenda scientists simply do not have.

Answer 5

Good news everyone!

This concept has been tried before. I believe it was in the year 1939 when a German leader by the name of Adolf Hitler tried to create a "master race".

EDIT: Hitler was wrong because of the WAY he tried to create the master race. He didn't let nature take it's course, but rather tried to force his own "ideal" race as the true race. It was ironic, however, that he was pretty much the opposite of everything he saw as ideal. His vision included only people who were tall, athletic, blonde-haired and blue-eyed. He was short, out of shape, dark haired and brown-eyed.

Even more ironic was the fact that both blonde hair and blue eyes are recessive traits, and not the dominant genomes.

Answer 6

What the hell is a "secular scientist"? Science is by its nature a secular activity, so that's just a redundant term, and worse, it falsely implies the existence of other types.

Your question about the origin of morality is already being investigated by scientists. The behavior of the other great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) is closely studied because they show much of the same moral reasoning in their interactions. Apparently, our moral intuitions evolved in support of our peculiar primate type of social order.

Answer 7

It's nothing about secular or religious. It's about moral code, and atheists and Christians (or other religions) alike need to follow a certain code of ethics and morality. Have you ever read Lord of the Flies??

Answer 8

Are you saying that animals don't have dignity or some form of morality, that animal societies don't establish a set of rights?

Or that humans don't have animal behavior?

Answer 9

I hate this stereotype more than anything. Atheists have a much lower divorce rate and take up way less than their share of prisons (10% population, 0.2% prison population). We're happier and more moral than you ever thought about being, not to mention smarter. It's been statistically proven.

Answer 10

Human behavior is animal behavior since humans are animals. We are not the only species that works together. In fact, all social animals have accountability.