(October 2, 2018 at 2:19 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(October 2, 2018 at 2:13 pm)polymath257 Wrote: 1. Because other animals have the basics of a feeling of fairness and of compassion. They also tend to be social species. And, the basics of sociality require the types of rules that *are* morality.
2. It could have evolved otherwise, but then we would be a very different species. To be *human*, with our social sensibilities and our evolutionary history, implies we respond negatively to this type of behavior.
3. Yes, one society can be regarded as being less moral than another. it all depends on what encourages human happiness and well-being. Same for individuals.
Think of it as a matter of *species* convention. Morality isn't objective in the sense that it is determined by something outside of humans. But it is also something that is part of being human.
1.) It doesn't follow that "it evolved" from this.
2.) Ok, so from this there is no morality, it's just if it pisses others off enough to a point of preventing you from reproducing. Nothing is really right or wrong.
3.) How do you make that comparison if it's based on the social group? If it's just how they happened to evolve with no telology or purpose; then you can't really make this comparison. You are assuming an objective morality (happyness and well-being) in this argument. What is your basis for this? I don't think that what makes the most people happy is a good way to base mortality.
1. On the contrary, the fact that it arises spontaneously in living species and is preserved does point to it being evolved. That is further supported by simple aspects of social species requiring rules (usually genetic) to structure their societies.
2. Sorry, but that is wrong. That morality doens't have the qualities you ant doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact tht things piss off enough people *is* the basis of morality in social species. But, as humans, we generalize rules for fairness, leading to 'don't piss off others' as a basic rule: in other words, be fair and have compassion.
3. I am not assuming an objective morality. I am pointing to objective *standards* for determining whether an act is harmful or not. Morality is a matter of fairness and compassion, both pointing to doing no unnecessary harm.
It isn't simply happiness. A drug induced happiness would not lead to well being: healthiness. But, promoting healthiness *is* a base for morality.
