(March 15, 2021 at 10:37 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Harsh, lol. Threads like these could help us to more clearly and accurately communicate our moral positions, and better understand other moral positions.
For example, we've learned that Seax doesn't actually believe that naturally advantageous things -are- the set of morally good things - rather the other way around. Goods things can be naturally advantageous. That this explains some portion of our moral development and positions on good which can be ascribed to the effect of selection.
However, assuming that morally good things can be naturally advantageous - and that societies and breeding populations will privilege and police the boundary of that advantage.... as they see it, we've multiplied the original problem, not resolved it. Now we have to contend with moral relativism and subjectivism, as well, at least descriptively.
The criteria of benefit, as employed in defense of volcanoes, may not help us here - as we can conceive of some benefit to any item of moral import deemed good or bad by any criteria (and just about everything not of moral import, too - we're endlessly creative at finding a use for things).
One killing benefits, another does not.... whether that's the individual, a breeding population, or society. Is there a moral difference between these two killings, and if so, what?
A broader version of the same question might be - suppose that one breeding population or society determined, accurately, that it would be beneficial to them to eradicate the other? If we contend that this would be bad in some sense that other breeding populations or societies would strike us down - then it seems to be the case that failing to eradicate the other society is the bad making property? If they rise up and beat you down that just goes to show that misdeeds are punished.....but if you secure the benefits and prevent any hope of reprisal, then a Very Good Deed has been accomplished. Carthago delenda est.
I think that there is a natural order to the universe, a natural morality if upon which the universe operates, if you like, & then a separate, relative human morality that is derived as a consequence of the natural order of nature. I probably should have explained this better.
Things like volcanos are outside the scope of human morality, but they serve nature's purpose; God's purpose. God or nature is beyond the scope of our human morality, so we don't really need to concern ourselves with it other than to recognise that our morality is an evolved trait created out of, & subordinate to the natural order. I don't accept the 'naturalistic fallacy' as a valid critique, because human morality is an evolved instinct. But it is important to understand that while nothing in nature is objectively immoral, there is much that is subjectively immoral from a human standpoint. Survival of the fittest is the law of nature, and it serves nature's purpose. But trying to apply it within a society, say by eliminating all labour & safety regulations & social safety nets so 'only the strong survive' would not be moral or serve nature's purpose because man is a social species that increases his fitness through cooperation. It would be outright maladaptive and pathological. There are things that are very advantageous for other species, that are disadvantageous to us.
Take rape, for example. Fowl (both galliformes & anseriformes) reproduce mostly through violent sexual coercion. Though it makes us uncomfortable, because we've evolved a very different mating strategy, it works for them and has kept ducks & pheasants thriving for millions of years. But rape reduces fitness in humans, which is why it's immoral & all healthy men have a visceral reaction to the thought of their female friends or relatives getting raped. So while in nature there are things that are relatively or subjectively immoral, there is nothing objectively immoral in nature, and it's foolish to try to apply our human morality to the nonhuman.
