> I'm sorry but that's a bit of goalpost-shifting there

No, not at all. What I have been saying all along is that there is no culture that believes that the torturing of babies for the fun of it is a good thing to do. Some kill or torture babies for religious reasons, some kill or torture babies in warfare or in genocide, and some kill or torture babies when they are mentally disturbed. But no culture anywhere anytime subscribes to the morality that it's generally a good thing—and right—to kill and torture babies for the fun of it.

> Yeah, not killing your own kids randomly is a no-brainer, because any society that does that simply becomes extinct in short order.

Exactly, but that's not even what I'm talking about, because some societies do kill their own children (child sacrifice, abortion). I'm specifying [b]for the fun of it[/b]. No culture does that, no culture culture believes it is right and good.

> On the other hand, if you're arguing, that evolutionary necessities dictate morals, we agree.

No, I'm not arguing this at all.

> No. Not as long as they were the children of others - of hostile groups.

Ah, here's the condition that changes the situation. As I said, as an act of war, hostility, or genocide, yep. But not in general.

>The issue is specifically that: that the emphasis was not on the fact that they were children, it was on which group they belonged to.

That's correct, but not in general, not as a cultural good no matter what the situation. There is no culture that believes it is right, regardless of any situations or conditions, to torture or kill children for the fun of it.

For instance, our culture believes that sexual abuse is wrong. In general. Regardless of any situations or conditions. Whether an adult or child, it's wrong. Not every culture believed that (like ancient Rome), but ours does. But there is NO culture, regardless of any situations or conditions, that believed that torturing a child for the fun of it was right and good. None. It's a moral absolute.

> They would kill children as an act of war or genocide, and maybe even enjoy doing it. But if they didn't kill their own children...

I'm sorry but that's a bit of goalpost-shifting there, not to mention that are you going to sell basic survival directives as absolute morals? It's like saying that it's an absolute moral to eat when you're starving: lo' and behold, every society does it, and it is considered good. Yeah, not killing your own kids randomly is a no-brainer, because any society that does that simply becomes extinct in short order.

On the other hand, if you're arguing, that evolutionary necessities dictate morals, we agree.

> then they thought killing children for the fun of it was wrong

No. Not as long as they were the children of others—of hostile groups. The issue is specifically that: [b]that the emphasis was not on the fact that they were children, it was on which group they belonged to.[/b] Basically, up until the XIX. century, children were perceived as something like "small adults" by society: they worked as soon as there was a work they could do, and they were available for marriage as soon as they reached puberty. In some ages and places, laws acknowledged their responsibility in most matters was limited, but that was far from universal. The spartans, notably, started their rather punishing martial training at age 7. Your assumptions about the perception of children in ancient times are the assumptions of a XXI. century person.

It is obvious that if you treat children in general as more or less like small adults, you also treat the children of your enemies as something like adult enemies of your tribe. And this is what people very often did.

If you want to lay down a universal moral rule among humans, it's probably closer to "we don't kill people of our own group unless other rules dictate it". But again, that's hard to sell as a moral absolute, when ignoring that simply eliminates the whole group sooner or later.

The thing is, if you attempt to formulate moral rules that are universal among humans, you're going to end up with rules that are also evolutionary necessities. Which of course means that they are only "absolute" for this species, and are subject to change.

> Didn't say all infants. Some is enough. One is enough to make it not universal.

One is not enough because your illustration of the "one" is a different category than the discussion at hand. Obviously there are individuals in history (psychopaths) who enjoyed torturing children for the fun of it. But we all recognize that behavior as mentally ill and wrong. Obviously there are soldiers who kill babies "for the fun of it" as an act of war. But their culture doesn't consider killing or torturing babies for the fun of it to be right, because they don't engage in that practice outside of warfare. They don't torture or kill their own babies for the fun of it. So your "one" doesn't change that the objective morality exists: there is no culture in history or on the planet that believes killing or torturing babies for the fun of it is right.

> I find it pretty ridiculous you claim to know the minds of all people everywhere from every time.

Oh, it's not a claim. That would be ridiculous. I'm just going by the evidence of anthropology, sociology, science and history. But, hey, if you have evidence of a culture that considers that killing or torturing babies for the fun of it is right and good, I'd be pleased to see your evidence.

Didn't say all infants. Some is enough. One is enough to make it not universal.

I find it pretty ridiculous you claim to know the minds of all people everywhere from every time.

> Many animals are observed playing with their food. "fun" is a survival behavior in many adolescent animals to hone in on their social, fighting, and hunting abilities.

Sure. Of course they are. It's instinctual behavior, not an expression of pleasure as we humans have, as far as we can tell.

> The Romans are a pure example of using the poor, sick, and enslaved in fighting for sport and entertainment.

Of course they did, but they didn't torture babies for the fun of it.

> If morality can be suspected into different scenarios and instances then doesn't it build the case that it is subjective?

Some morality is subjective. Different cultures follow different practices and even sometimes different moralities. But there is no culture anywhere on the planet or anywhere in history that says it's right to torture babies for the fun of it. Therefore some expressions of morality are objective and absolute.

Many animals are observed playing with their food. "fun" is a survival behavior in many adolescent animals to hone in on their social, fighting, and hunting abilities.

The Romans are a pure example of using the poor, sick, and enslaved in fighting for sport and entertainment.

If morality can be suspected into different scenarios and instances then doesn't it build the case that it is subjective?

> Not all are for convenience

I agree that not all abortions are for convenience. There are some legitimate medical reasons to abort a baby.

> not all are killing

Hmm. That depends on your assessment of when life begins. If the zygote has a different genetic structure than the mother and a different blood type, and if it is made of living cells and has 23 pairs of chromosomes, I think we could conclude that it is a living organism. And if one brings cessation to that living organism, how is it not killing?

> It’s your casual summation of other people’s decisions that disturbs me.

You judge me too casually yourself. I know that the decision to abort is often a difficult and strenuous one. It is sometimes made with difficulty, but sometimes also routinely. We both know that most abortions in the country are abortions of convenience, not of medical necessity.

> You don't think that abortion is killing (ending a life) for convenience?

Not all are for convenience and not all are killing. It’s your casual summation of other people’s decisions that disturbs me.

Of course they do, but that's not the point. The point is if those soldiers believe that it's right to kill children for the fun of it. You'll find that universally it is not. They may take pleasure in killing children as an act of war, but then they don't go home and hack the children of their own village to pieces. It's because they don't believe that killing children for the fun of it is right. They only enjoy warfare and may get some rise out of the blood and glory, etc. etc. But no one walks around murdering children during the course of a common day the same as we might eat lunch or have a party. No one. No one thinks that is right. No one ever did.

You think some soldiers don't enjoy warfare?