Sources of secular moral laws predating the Abrahamic God? Philosophically, a source being older than another doesn't mean it's more accurate or truer than the younger source.
What I wrote was that moral law (its primitive origin and application) predates the emergence of contemporary versions of anthropomorphic gods (http://genealogyreligion.net/the-earliest-moral-ethical-laws-were-not-religious), which brings into question the link between human morality and the Abrahamic God, and as a side note, that the oldest written moral/ethic/legal codes were (mostly) secular in nature and much older than the Mosaic laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes). Which form of (objective) morality is more accurate or truer is besides the point.
Objective moral values are kindness or love, why? How are they good independent of human belief? Because they don't result in humans killing each other? Why is that a 'good' quality? Why is human survival a good thing? What authority is that moral law/trait based on? How is a pesticide killing an ant colony morally different than human genocide?
Again, note what I wrote. I questioned whether there is a distinction between morality and objective morality and then went ahead to use the commonly accepted definition for objective morality (as per Stanford, for what it is worth). You yourself previously referred to the definition of "objective" (Objective (source: definition.com)- existing independent of perception, individual conception, emotion, or personal bias. (tldr-true regardless of opinio
n). You have now raised an interesting angle to the debate though. Morality (or the application thereof) is fallible, correct? Somebody referred to God being the personal embodiment of morality. If fallible, how can that be? If the old Genesis narrative is to be taken seriously, humanity learned all about morality from the fruits of the forbidden tree. Again, that knowledge clearly seems fallible. Even God's alleged morality seems highly dubious...the genocide of the Canaanites being one example..? A fallible morality would thus point to a natural (opposed to divine) process of acquiring it, no?
I agree with your definition of morality, but not you behavioral interpretation into naturalism. If behavior is determined by nature and nurture, then humans are pre-hard wired to do what we do and the biochemistry in our brains combined with our experience completely determines our actions and thoughts. This means that our actions are not objectively wrong unless:
1. We are in control of our actions regardless of our nature/nurture
2. How we ought to behave is fundamentally (of primary source) grounded in something outside of humanity's perception, conception, emotion, or personal bias.
You lack both of those qualities, just as aleph_naught does. Your morality is firmly planted in mid air; grounded on nothing.
Well, there is not yet consensus (will there ever be?) but there is a significant number of behavioural- and neurological scientists who hold this opinion; dare I say this is the most prominent contemporary school of thought among scientists? Which would then imply that you are sort of right in saying that our actions can hardly be sinful (is that what you meant by objectively wrong?). Of course that does not mean that we could, or would behave in any manner we see fit, because "what is fit" are based on checks and balances that are deeply rooted in our evolutionary social behavioural skills. Obviously there are those who will, like psychopaths (a freakish result of gene/environment interplay). Hard wired..? That is another contentious subject. In any event and w.r.t. to your points 1 & 2, the contemporary school of thought is that our behaviour is largely automated. We're complex marionettes dancing to the strings of our genes and environments
(Jerry A. Coyne from an article on Free Will: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25381). Our sense of "morality" is thus "grounded" in evolution and applied via our gene/environment-inspired behaviour, hardly planted in mid air.
Mammal, I had that issue before. The below is a message from a mod:
As soon as you reach five approved posts you'll be set free to post at your leisure. Sorry for the inconvenience but this keeps spam and other issues off the forum.
Thank you. I thought it had something to with such a restriction, which is understandable. It makes it difficult to get into a conversation in real time though and be able to edit, etc.