Apparently, secular morality doe not include the proper construction and limitation of paragraph structure.
Apparently not. But if that's what I doe not do, it's still a fact that you buck any attempts at accuracy like a deer in the headlights. :shrug:
Examples of secular evolved morality in action include concentration camps, the Terror following the French Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, and the Killing Fields.
Not at all. Aside from the seemingly fallacious nature of implicitly labeling the deeds of a man who declared
"[m]y feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter" an example of "secular evolved morality in action," the other "examples" were notably not instances of secular
rationality in action, but mere agitated fervency almost
religious in nature. As within the church, there was coerced reliance on irrational doctrines not independently reached or understood through the maximum utilization of logical faculties, except that these doctrines were political rather than theological. Secular humanism, for example, is obviously distinct and cannot be labeled similar except disingenuously.
As for happiness being the focal point of one's mortal life, I suppose that's OK if one has very low self expectations. It's pretty much the motivation of the brighter sub-human mammals.
I'm afraid not. It's the imperative focus of all forms of conscious life; you simply do not understand the label or the nature of its definition, which leads me to believe that you would have misunderstood even more egregiously had I written that the focal point of one's mortal life was pleasure. No, happiness is merely that which one strives for with all self-interested deed, even seemingly altruistic deeds. It's not limited to clearly felicitous emotion, though that is at its core. Moreover, a "qualitative separation of pleasures" crafted by the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill is able to separate the "lower pleasures" of physical urges and such from the "higher pleasures" of intellectual satisfaction and its derivatives, though I tend to view the distinction between the two as somewhat arbitrary.
The idea of Human Rights by the way cannot really be supported logically.
Perhaps not, at least not to the extent that it's commonly interpreted. I'm inclined to agree with Jeremy Bentham that the concept of natural rights is "nonsense on stilts," and that the purpose of rights is merely that of a means to a more profound end, the maximization of happiness. And I certainly don't consider speciesist rights divisions to be meaningful, since beings should be accorded rights according to their ability to logically desire those rights and suffer from the denial of such rights.
Once again I point out that in a non-spiritual model of the universe, death of the victim is the perfect redress for all offenses, since it removes the suffering, even in memory.
You seem to have a rather convoluted definition of suffering, but duration is a necessary criterion by which to judge suffering, almost of equal importance as intensity. For example, some would rather endure a minute-long electrocution than months of a mild itch. And as such, suffering endured throughout mortal life is relevant despite its temporary nature; it is still of sufficient duration to be conceptualized and felt.
In this model, a long life of torture and abuse is completely corrected by simple euthanasia. In fact, since we know that any suffering whatever will be completely erased at death, no suffering in any form need be addressed as long as it does not interfere with the order of society.
This is very good news for people with kidnap victims chained in the basement.
I've never encountered such an absurdly poor ethical perspective as your understanding of "this model." The very basis for the "order of society" is the preservation of conditions free from suffering. It's thus imperative to have general guidelines and rules intact to prevent suffering even though the suffering of one individual does not affect the vast majority of others, since only collective guidelines are a sufficient universal defense.
