(October 6, 2010 at 8:01 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: As theVOID said, many of our most basic moral intuitions have nothing to do with survival. How does giving money to a charity for starving Africans increase our chances of survival? It doesn't. Africans can't return the favour. Survivability may be, and probably is, how our morality came to be, but it has nothing to do with our ethical views in most situations.
One could argue that giving money to starving africans simply increases our own feeling of well being and inflate our already bloated egos. Since giving a few bucks to buy footballs for some starving african kids does nothing to help them survive and prosper independently, the only consequence of the action of "moral charity" serves to keep others dependent on outside help, and as i said, inflate the ego.
As for the OP's "blog"... there is no seriously tangible meaning of right and wrong, it all depends on the rules laid out by the society you happen to be in at the time. And if a man was marooned on a desert island, he would make his own ideas about what is right and what is wrong...
ohhh dammit i'll get back to this later, i have much to say and to little time lol