[Serious] Good vs Evil

[Smaug]

Thanks for the explanation! I agree that there probably are some underlying principles that can be derived from the nature of moral behaviour in social animals and people. I'm just not sure that they can be placed on the same level of absolute as, say, such physical constancs as gravitational constant or speed of light in vacuum. I view these principles as some sort of 'optimal solutions' which are only understood with respect to certain 'objective function' (group survival). However, if we speak of the society as we know it they may be pretty universal.

I reject the thesis that says "morality is based on group survival." Even if you and another individual were the last two beings in existence, and you were both going to die (let's say from a bomb or something), there are things that you could do to this person in the meantime that would matter as far as ethics is concerned. You could provide this person comfort during this time period, or you could tie this person up and subject them to horrible torture until the bomb exploded. Both of these activities have an ethical dimension, but neither relates to "group survival" since you both are sure to die.

To me this explanation is problematic. Even if all the humans disappear, you're still a product of social evolution and the society you lived in. So your istincts and more importantly your life experience which you aquired throughout your social life are still with you. This includes thought patterns that get so embedded in the brain that you have a raw conclusion to the situation before you do the reasoning. So having all your experience on board and assuming you're not a psychopath of some kind there's no good reason for you to even think seriously of killing the other man.

There are great many examples that show that moral behaviour is formed by the society and lifetime experience. For example a kid may kill an animal not out of cruelty or for fun but just out of interest. For him this is no bigger deal than to dissasemble a toy. But after this very kid comprehends the concepts of pain and suffering in a right way he may change his view. Of course such type of behaviour is generally prevented early on by parenting. Also there do appear to be some empathy 'hard-coded' into the brain due to social evolution but it is very limited.

Why I stress 'survival'. Certain types of behaviour are results of an organism pursuing some goal. In Nature the only global goal known to science is survival (and procreation which is part of it), if I haven't missed something out of course. Life as a whole strives to survive, species struggle for survival and on the lowest end are the individual organisms. This global goal breaks apart into smaller goals each of them generating certain types of behaviour. With simplier loner ogranisms this stays relatively primitive. Hunt, eat, evade predators, find a mate etc.

With social life it becomes seriously more complex. But the main goal is still there. Social life itself is a way to better achieve this main goal for a species or a group. Very genegally speaking, moral behaviour is a way to cut down on needless competition inside a collective for better chances of survival for most of its members. Let's consider one of the more profound examples - self-sacrifice. For a loner animal which is healthy enaugh self-sacrifice is completely meaningless unless it is to defend its young. But for a social species this may make sense even so far that some have drones that do not procreate at all. Humans have a highly developed brain and live in vast societies with complex pattens of competition and partnership so it's of no surprise that they have complex moral codes. It's good to note that like many natural systems these codes have more and less important components. Certain 'commandments' are more important than the other to keep the society from falling apart. Some moral rules may even look 'unreasonable' in terms of survival, at least on the first glance. Whether some of them are 'bugs' caused by the sheer complexity of the system or 'features' that may save human species from extinction and lift it to some other level of existence all this came to be as a result of finding a survival strategy which is a property of life itself.

Putting mating aside, for a crocodile a decision to attack only depends upon whether it's worth the energy and what harm it can result in. For a lion it's a'ok to rip open and eat a gazelle while it's still alive or to kill another lion's cubs but it's not always ok to be hostile to another lion in the same pride. Male lions can also form partnership. Some species of animals can become attached to a member of another species. For a primitive homo sapiens it was ok to exterminate another tribe without second thought and even to consume flesh of his own kind while his own peers deserved empathy. A contemporaty man have moral codes that discourage not only brutality and cruelty towards his own kind but also to many other kinds of life. And in terms of organism people from the two latter examples are basically the same. An important difference is that the less man had to think about immediate survival and his fears the more time he had to analyze the world around, his actions and their consequences. It would not be even possible if not for a proper state of society. And morality is not only dependant upon social structure, it is the result of assuming social way of survival.

Speaking of the main 'commandments', i. e. against killing & stealing, my current view that they are among the most clear examples. If these are not followed consistently enaugh the whole point of social life dissapears because the society inevitably falls and even the most basic survival benifits of social life are lost. Same goes for the less strict taboos. Backstabbing and lying are generally discouraged because they erode the society. A collective where such people go unpunished gradually gets unbearable to be in. The other members of such collective are forced to either adopt the same behaviour or to become suspicious of everyone. So not only the people become unhappy and worrysome but the collective as a whole is no longer successful in pursuing whatever goal it had and gradually falls apart.

To sum it up. Striving for survival (and procreation) which is property of Life itself is the very reason moral behavior exists at all (or any type of behaviour). This explanation may not look aesthetically appealing. But it does the job of explaining the way of life fairly good without invoking redundant entities. At least up to date. At least to me.