Once you know, you know

A popular moral philosophy of those who conquer and enslave is that they are doing right by brining “salvation” “enlightenment” or “civilization” to “lesser people.” To this day you’ll find those who argue the suave trade did a service to descendants of slaves who otherwise would likely would have grown up in their ancestral homes or not at all and be at a disadvantage. So morality is clearly relative- and our moral guides tend to line up with either that which benefits us or that which doesn’t harm us. However- humans sometimes do seem to act against self interest in a moral pursuit...

But do we? Religion sets a clear example of where we are constantly being judged by a third party who is ever present and watching- and that all our actions have penalty or reward waiting. In that regard such morality IS self serving- while giving the lady back the money she dropped when you could have kept it and likely not been caught seems to go against self interest- it is in a religious sense self serving in most cases as that money is not worth eternal damnation or whatever to most. But what about no religious folks? There’s still the literal following of karma as well as an unofficial concept of karma held by many. A subconscious belief that our actions somehow come back on us.

Even if we could completely rule out these factors and their possible permutations- we still go back to our example of self interest in society- that while we may want the money or need it- we also want to live in a society where we are protected. A large part of why any animal including humans develops social behaviors is for protection. You want to know that if you lost something of yours- someone would return it. It’s social insurance. If you do not follow the model of a society you want to live in- that model breaks down.

Therefore free of religion or supernatural concept there still are very real and practical reasons to develop “moral” behavior. The fact we can ask if something is “right” or “wrong” is merely us asking if we think a thing is a concept in society which we believe will or could benefit us. In a society where people only can wear blue socks- if you already wear blue socks such a law doesn’t effect you. And perhaps you would never foreseeable wear any other color sock and you are sure of that- but you also are aware on some level most likely that a society that can ban non blue socks can also ban blue socks or something you DO care about. Hence you might look at that law and deem it wrong.

The questioning of right and wrong can’t be said to be some inherent special human trait. It’s merely an examination of a thing and am asking if this thing is advantageous or not. When faced with a grave enough decision or a great enough benefit we know at some point you can find the combination of factors that can make almost and theoretically anyone bend or break their ideas of morality- and we also know humans can choose to justify a thing as morally right even if we can demonstrate clearly it is counter to their established and stated morality.

So I’m the end- even IF we could say morality was some special human gift and not just labels we apply to decisions we don’t completely understand or a form of socialization- we can’t say that matters much at all since morals are relative, most people will change their moral stance on at least one thing, at least once, in their life- and effectively all humans will justify an immoral act as moral when committed by themselves or someone they are close to at some point simply to preserve their idea of themselves or that person as “good.”

Tl:dr- human beings have a capacity for reason we don’t seem to observe in other species. We can understand our decisions and evaluate them as well as our motivations. We have a society which allows us some protection from the near sure death of the social outcast in a more brutal society- but this capacity only exists if we choose to exercise it. If we do not use it we are no different than an animal.

Sometimes I just want to put like... 5 of you in the middle of the Westboro Baptist Church during a congregation, set all 5 of you off, and watch what the fuck happens.

Lol. You can get a similar effect to listening to 5 or me by soldering a solar panel to the battery terminals of 20 furbies and then dropping some peyote.

Lol what the actual fuck XD

There is actually an interesting theory that dogs domesticated us. That our early ancestors took cues on social behaviors and effective cohesive unit tactics like coordinated group hunting from dogs. But long before we were specifically breeding dogs, dogs were breeding themselves. Those with certain genetics were perhaps better suited to trust or socialize with humans, they may have bred with other dogs around humans or some may have bred with wild dogs. It’s an interesting thought you have.

I will say this though in my opinion, I used dogs and cats because those are social animals many people can relate or have experience with their behaviors, but most social animals have similar practices- even the most rudimentary society requires some form of established values which form order. Perhaps the most basic of these would be simple hierarchy of dominance- where a society is based on whoever has the strength does as suits them and the rest follow their lead.

If we examine the morality of such a rudimentary society we can see that historical human cultures have held similar moral values, and we can even see where some modern human morality still shows evidence of such. The stereotypical “warrior society” and “warriors code” or “honor code” are examples of such expressions of morality. Ideas in society about bravery and cowardice- and as we see societies go through cycles we see these values shift and change.

By and large one ant is not so much different from another by type, but their society doesn’t seem to operate under an order of dominance by direct force. The queen could not defend against her best more likely than not. The ants know not to harm the queen, they know not to let harm come to her. In their society the question of right or wrong would seem to dented around an almost Confucian value of familial piety with the queen as matriarch respected above all.

In human society Confucian values serve a similar role. Through the strength and obedience of individual family units to themselves, society is bettered. The young benefit from an order and stability, the old benefit, and the leadership benefits because the only subject needing direct rule or loyalty is the head of a family, the tail will follow the head, and in such systems the ruling establishment is generally considered a prime head of all families and is thus given piety by all “below” them.

So while the values and forms of societies modern and throughout history have their variants- we can see analogs in naturally social creatures. Even creatures which are normally not social but tend to be social under certain conditions often have “manners” or conventions they follow in these instances. While we can’t definitively answer wether any living thing, even humans, isn’t subject to some absolute destiny or simply carrying out a program in our genes without actual freewill-

If we assume there is any amount of free will in the world we can see that not all animals of the same species act the same and at the very least each individual creature would have a different “destiny” or “program,” and we know social creatures tend to develop these traits over time, they evolve, and even “wild” and “domestic” creatures or normally non social creatures can form social relationships- if not casual ones.

Humans wonder if fighting is “right,” but even those who decide violence is absolutely wrong will say that sometimes it is unavoidable even justifiable. Animals too quite often are averse to violence. A lion doesn’t kill anything that it sees. It kills when it is justifiable or unavoidable. To protect itself and what it has, to protect its social order, to feed, etc. we could say some creatures sometimes seem to kill for “no reason” such as “for fun,” but this behavior is believed to be a form of “practice” of skills or exertion of power and influence- reasons humans might also kill for. The development of non deadly contests of pseudo combat like sports doesn’t show an inherent moral compass- it’s practical- human society functions on collective effort. Less humans means less work units. We are aware that killing those who have a skill means less survive to master the skill, and less masters of a skill hurts society.

We will kill those with said skill who we do not see as part of our society- or a threat to it. A soldier will kill an enemy soldier but few militaries make their own practice to the death. A lion will kill other predators or lions of other prides- but in general when lions practice amongst each other it isn’t “to the death” unless the contest is for dominance- once humans did this more extensively as well as it is practical without law or weak law to eliminate those who challenge tor authority so that they do not pose a future threat.

So largely we can observe a basis of human morality in practicality- and that same moral practicality is observable in many animals- especially social ones- the more complex a society is the more complex the morals tend to be. A small tribe of nomad herders in a harsh environment will tend to have a moral code with strong practical survival roots and very little ambiguity. A well established urban population with plentiful resources will tend towards more involved morals and be more open to philosophical examination because their survival is less dependent on morality.

If we were to imagine a society in which we had some “magic” means to produce infinite energy and there make goods from thin air at no cost in labor or otherwise, governed by a benevolent and immortal intelligence- this society would be almost completely free from survival challenges or any scarcity. Their morality would likely reflect this in ways that to us might be odd or seem foolish. The term “morality” itself denotes luxury- when one has the time and ability to define choices in context beyond what is required to survive. Guns society developed to a point where we afforded ourselves the luxury of pontification.

Guest, do you write essays for a living or is it just a hobby to inform others of your wondrous knowledge? That is a real interesting thing though, how situation and community will influence your morality just because of the environment and stuff. I still don't know how you just seem to have information about every topic that ever pops up here! Or the time to write such long and well thought out responses...

lol. Thank you @calvinoot. I’ve been around awhile and have taken in as much as I could. I also have a mind that only turns off when I sleep, and a job that gives me lots of time spent waiting, so I fill it with things like this. I don’t generally get to write in this format usually. I do a lot of technical writing and executive bullet point at work, and other writing I do tends to be more structured- so it’s also kinda fun for me to just get to sort of unleash my inner and unedited monologue. I appreciate when people read it and always hope someone might find something of interest at least as a thought exercise- and don’t expect everyone to always agree with me. Sometimes I don’t agree with me! Life tends to have more questions than answers. We just all try our best.

You are such a wonderful person! :D Sharing your knowledge is a great use of your time and I enjoy every comment! ^_^ Keep being you dude!