I have eyes and ears? Humans can be willfully ignorant, as in the case of someone exposed to the relevant information who then rejects it in favor of personal belief.
It is disruptive to society. It ends potential. It is counter-productive to the survival of the species. It is a violation of the personhood of the child. It is inflicting on someone else something that we don’t want inflicted on us because we perceive it to be bad.
Can you really not think of a reason that killing a child is bad without god being involved?
I don’t need to. There is no objective evidence to support the existence of anything defined as supernatural. I am free to reject the idea using just as much evidence.
In a naturalistic world, what is personhood? What value does it have? What if that child’s family is competing with mine for food and other necessities of life? What is ‘bad’ in a naturalistic world?
Your position is wrong logically-Any knowledge I may or may not have as to the natural morality of any given event has no bearing whatsoever on the possibility of your alternate supernatural universe. It just shows that I either know or do not know the answer to your question. It is entirely possible that it can be explained in the natural universe but I don’t have that particular knowledge.
The very point is that you need to explain where your intrinsic objection comes from.
Also, we don’t think as a species but as individuals. If a village threatens my survival, I deal with that. In a naturalistic world there is no value to anyones life other than mine and my families, unless they can provide me with something I need and don’t threaten me. \
Once again, any answer given to these off-topic questions has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of your proposed supernatural world. My not know the answer to any given question doesn’t make your answer even worth considering.
At the risk of creating a (further) hijack:
According to whom in what society? Certainly, you will not find (many) people today in our society accepting the infliction of torture on a person identified both as “innocent” and “child,” but there have clearly been societies who had no problem with that behavior. Setting an infant with a deformity or the “wrong” sex out to die of exposure has been practiced in many societies, (including some to whom we look as models from which we draw inspiration. “Spare the rod; spoil the child” has been used to justify behavior that I would consider torture even in our society within my lifetime.
If there was a fixed moral standard, that would have been deemed wrong by all societies.
I recall from an anthropology class I took a long time ago that only three rules have been found in every society: prohibitions on murder, theft, and incest.
However, in each case, the definitions of those taboo actions have differed so widely as to actually contradict each other from society to society. Murder and theft, for example, have often been defined as only applying to members of the tribe, extended, sometimes, to guests. Incest has such a wide variety of definitions, (sometimes requiring mating between siblings), that it, too, is of no use in determining an “objective” morality.
If you attempt to list an “objective” morality, you will soon find that it cannot be passed across societal boundaries without being shredded.
We think as individuals, within ‘packs’. If my pack is threatened by your pack, I will react.
Naturalism places no value on anyones life above my own. There is no room for altruism that does not benefit me. There is no value to anyone’s life outside of it’s utility to me.