Beg to differ. There are plenty of books and psychological studies done on non-human animals showing a basic sense of morality at work amongst them. Just because they aren't speakng human and telling us about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sin is a human concept, and a religious one at that.

who here thinks hitler though himself as evil..?? and do you think he cared if other people thought he was...?? In his perspective i bet he saw himself as the good guy and that was enough for him to function :-).

and as "one of them" i assume u mean a Taoist..?? :-P

I beg to differ. Those studies ignore the fact that those behaviors are beneficial to the survival of those species, which makes animal morality distinctly different from human morality. Human morality includes behaviors that do not benefit survival of the species. Altruism, for example, only seems to exist in one other species than humans, that is dolphins, but since we can't talk to them, we can't know for certain. Human morality can also change on a cognitive level, rather than an instinctual one. Slavery was acceptable to many people in the world not that long ago, but it is now almost universally unacceptable. Humans didn't evolve, our society did. This does not exist in the animal kingdom.

One of the main problems with this line of "science" is that it is directly influenced by the practitioner's world view. A scientist who believes in evolution must automatically assume that humans aren't that different or unique from other animals. So behaviors that are beneficial to the survival to a species will be seen as "good" and behaviors that are not exhibited, because they would be bad for the species is see as "bad". Thus confirming their already assumed position that humans evolved from animals and are therefore not unique in having morality.

Did he think of himself as evil? Probably not, he was probably a psychopath. So who cares what he thought, he was insane. If he were a psychopath, then he didn't think of himself as good either. For a psychopath, good is anything that benefits him and bad is anything that negatively impacts him. Psychopaths don't think of themselves as the good guy, because there would have to be other moral agents for them to feel that way and they don't believe other beings have feelings or matter. If you were the only person on earth, would you think of yourself as "good"?



No, I meant someone who believes in relative morality.

:-)

It means that evil is not objective, it is subjective.

Here is a good explanation of the difference.
Objective vs. Subjective

I would cut and paste but it is a pdf file.

http://www.asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf

If that link does not work cut and paste in the address:

http://www.asdatoz.com/Documents/Website-%20Objective%20vs%20subjective%20ltr.pdf

Or go here to index of documents and click on objective vs subjective

http://www.asdatoz.com/Documents/

How would you define a "moral agent?"

morals are concepts created by man....just like good and evil

Jeanniebean,

I know the definitions of objective vs subjective. I believe that morals are objective. In other words, morality would exist even if humans didn't. I believe that most humans are born with an innate awareness of right and wrong and right/wrong is universal for all moral agents.

A moral agent is a being who is capable of doing good or evil. In other words, a moral agent can do beneficial / harmful acts with the intention of benefiting / harming another.

Spider,
First you said,
"Only moral agents can commit sins or do evil. "

Okay, following that, my question was, how would you define "a moral agent."

Your definition of a moral agent is:
"A moral agent is a being who is capable of doing good or evil."

Before I can be clear on what good and evil are according to you, I need a better definition of what a moral agent is.

So far all I have is "a being."

Since you are claiming that an animal is not a "moral agent," and I do consider an animal to be "a being" you will have to be more specific.

Is an animal a being or not? If not, then what is it? If it is, then what makes it not qualify as a "moral agent?"

If morality would exist even if humans didn't then who would know? What would it matter if it existed if there were no moral agents? (Or are you assuming there are other beings (non-human) who exist who are "moral agents.")

i find it funny what a shi*t storm one comment created lol...i dunno what's to be gained about arguing about this honestly...live n let live...that is until its time to let die...bond...james bond