Yes, that's the language problem. A "moral action" doesn't mean anything until you define what is moral and what is not.

I'd say a species has some form of scientific "morality" if it can co-exist in groups and doesn't always just beat the shit out of each other. But further than that, the terminology is up for grabs.

Where can one find a society that always beats the shit out of each other.
I doubt one exists. 
Then do all societies have some form of that morality?
Feral cats could be an exception, they usually fight.
Perhaps the definition of society could be extended to include communities that always fight, e.g. the apocryphal cats and dogs.

Sure, that bit probably wasn't necessary. Just being able to live in groups is what I would call scientific morality.

I realized afterwards that wasn't such a great explanation

Some animals don't tend to live in groups but don't fight either if they come across each other.

Is that neutral morality? Or amorality? I'm just making this shit up as I go along.

Empathy.

There's a small green planet near Alpha Centauri. Our morals are beamed into our heads from there.

(November 10, 2015 at 12:38 pm)robvalue Wrote: Is that neutral morality? Or amorality? I'm just making this shit up as I go along.

Me too.  It seems the best way and we've got lots of company.

It's interesting what you said about societies not being able to think outside their own accepted morality. I've always held that to be very true, and it's one of the reasons objective morality is nonsense. Every society uses itself as a yardstick.

I've said before, I think people generally go with the flow. They may think they would have developed exactly the same moral ideals in a different culture, but I reckon that's wishful thinking. It's one of the reasons I always try and think outside of societal norms for my own morality. I'm not saying I always succeed, but I try.

(November 10, 2015 at 12:55 pm)robvalue Wrote: It's interesting what you said about societies not being able to think outside their own accepted morality. I've always held that to be very true, and it's one of the reasons objective morality is nonsense. Every society uses itself as a yardstick.

I've said before, I think people generally go with the flow. They may think they would have developed exactly the same moral ideals in a different culture, but I reckon that's wishful thinking. It's one of the reasons I always try and think outside of societal norms for my own morality. I'm not saying I always succeed, but I try.

That's a good and useful exercise.
But I find it wise to stay anonymous in the practice.
Thought police are not yet very effective, but once outed, iconoclasts tend to be suppressed, often violently.

Nice primer on evolutionary origins of morality. TED talk by Frans de Waal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

I also recommend his book Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. In this book, de Waal gives an overview of his argument. What I like is that Part II contains almost 80 pages of rebuttal (including one from Peter Singer). Worth the time in my opinion.
http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosoph...bc?ie=UTF8

That deals with potential origins. The next step is attempt to understand what humans have done with morality after developing the ability of abstract thought. For that, a little philosophy is in order. These links are a nice summation of the prevailing ethical systems: 

Deontological ethics - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

Consequentialism - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Virtue Ethics - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

That's too complicated though. It's magic

Cheers, I'll check that video out! I only have a superficial grasp of these things, enough to drone on about it a little bit.