(May 19, 2017 at 11:41 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(May 19, 2017 at 11:27 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: I believe moral standards evolved under the influence of social pressures. Our species seems to have a survival instinct, and over time we recognized certain actions as conducive to that survival.
This is subjective only in that different societies come to different conclusions. As we evolve into a global society so will our conclusions. For instance, in the west, we recognize intellectual property. China does not. China’s desire to get along with the west will give it an objective reason to respect our standards, while we in the west wanting to get along with China have an objective reason not to judge their society based on our standards as long as they don’t plagiarize what we consider to be ours.
Do you think eventually, if the world got sooo overpopulated that an individual's survival depended on there being less people so that there could be enough resources left for us personally, we'd eventually evolve to believe it's immoral to help save someone who's dying? Assuming they are a complete stranger and not friend or family I mean - just some random person.
It could be argued that it is impractical to help save someone who's dying or prevent abortion in such extremely implausible drastic situations. Immoral or not, can't say. Practical is not equivalent to moral.
Morality seems to be mainly innate in some way, with certain variations due to varying personality and/or environmental factors. Practicality is about what works for an individual or group as a whole, and is typically purely based on reason rather than innate intuitive feelings that something is right or wrong.
