Who's More Moral?

Umm... I think you've misread/misinterpreted something. In Message 7 Rob said (emphasis mine):

quote:

---

We can only say that with a naturalist framework there is no complelling reason to be good, since good is whatever benefits you and your survival.

---

If being good is whatever keeps you alive, I don't think being good could possibly kill you. I realize most people have different moral standards where good doesn't equal staying alive, but that's what Rob wrote, and that's what Chris was responding to when he asked:

quote:

---

isn't your survival a compelling enough of a reason to be good?

---

I disagree. Human rights are what ensure our survival as a species. There is no changing of the goal nor of any parameters.

You seem to misunderstand utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is doing that which begets the greatest good for the most people. Absolutely not like the nihilistic strawman you've concocted. In fact, you could say it's the opposite.I don't know what naturalism has to do with morality.The rest of your post is just a strawman argument. (And I'm having the hardest time figuring out just how your Stephen Hawking quote relates in any way to the rest of your post.)

We already did - in fact, you did. Good is survival.

At the most basic level, yes, I suppose it is.