Replacing Religious Morality

[Vadakin]

What is the socially moral thing to do when a member of the collective is no longer useful (or never was), but still a drain on the collective?

In a Darwinist sense, the right thing to do would be to remove such individuals from the tribe. Luckily, we don't have to be bound by Darwinism and that's the whole point.

The origins of morality are basic. It's the same traits that wolves and elephants and other social animals have. For social animals, survival of the fittest means survival of the collective. That basic instinct still runs through us but we've grown beyond basic Darwinism.

The answer to your question is that we look after such an individual. That's the right thing to do. Why is it right? Because we choose to make it right. The evolutionary origins of morality are useful in explaining where morality comes from but we have grown to value the individual even when it has no benefit to the collective.

Does that mean morality is subjective? Yes. Absolutely. And we have shifted from right and wrong being products of what's best for the collective to what's best for the collective coming from what we deem to be right and wrong.

We see it all the time. Take the Bible for example. How many Christians follow every word of the Bible? How many of them take the words of Leviticus to be true and make judgements about people based on the parameters laid out in Leviticus? Too many. But how many ignore Leviticus? How many Christians, when questioned about the atrocities in the Old Testament will tell you that their faith is defined by the good deeds of Jesus, effectively discounting the bad stuff? A whole lot more.

The very nature of moderate Christianity actually shows that morality is subjective, not objective. People take from the Bible what they want to take. They take the good and ignore what they consider to be the bad. They choose their morality.

So, according to you, if Jacob had taught others to grow wheat and raise cattle - if the survival of the tribe did not depend on him - then then Isaac's actions would not have been deemed immoral? We may depend on each other for survival, but the fact remains, one individual's actions rarely rise to the level of threatening the existence of another individual and almost never to the level of threatening the survival and progression of society.

Perhaps he was in the process of teaching them. But you're missing the point. Forget morality as it exists today. What we have today is a complex construct, developed over thousands of years. What I'm talking about is the very basic origins and reasons for right and wrong. We have the same basic morality as wolves and elephants and other social animals. The point I'm making is that it doesn't come from God, it comes from evolution. Morality began as a means of survival. But where it is right now is a result of our minds expanding beyond survival of the fittest.