[Right Wing Professor]

OK, doc ... tell me why murder is "wrong." Or tell me why something is "good."

I thought we were discussing the moral implications of evolution? Since I maintain it has none, no discussion of the morality of murder would be relevant to a discussion of evolution.

But since you asked; murder is wrong because it terminates a human life, which is a good in itself.

[MacDorcha]

You may want to qualify that with "Murder is wrong because it terminates a human life while not necessarily preserving another."

Killing can be right, as long as it is to preserve another life.

[r9etb]

it terminates a human life, which is a good in itself.

And what make human life "a good in itself?" You're going to have to appeal to something objective for your claim to have any meaning. Anything less than an objective basis will collapse into relativism, and most likely utilitarianism.

But suppose I were to make the counter-claim that "making 'better' children" was the highest good? The objective basis for my claim would be that I can see all around me, using the evidence in favor of evolution, that this is the objective definition of "good." It's straightforward to show how this claim leads to utilitarianism.

[Heartlander]

I thought we were discussing the moral implications of evolution? Since I maintain it has none, no discussion of the morality of murder would be relevant to a discussion of evolution.

I thought natural selection was central to evolution.