Animals teach each other what is permissable within their societies and what
is not. We too as humans teach our young to develop compassion and
morals. This is all part and parcel of keeping society trundling along
within constructive parameters. If a behaviour or activity drains too
much from the resource pool of the all, or the individual, then usually
these variables are actively suppressed generation upon generation.
Moral structure to me seems essential for any kind of cohesive society
to succeed and continue to be a winning thread within a sea of evolving
social constructs. Ultimately the most efficient few social constructs
that extract the most productivity from their subjects are the ongoing
winners monetarily; and perpetually as they are looked upon by others
with jealous eyes as being the best model to deliver the highest
standard of livings for any given populous. Protection of the collective
and of the productive contributors to the successful collective will
always require "moral" social structures. This isn't to say that
everything is perfect or that social constructs on the other side of the
fence are morally respected by the big-wigs of the the "morally" sound
leading ways. But any system of humans must have moral aspects of
respect and humanity these days to keep up with the times and to gel the
collective together from within.
Any society is so complex as to offer multitudinous exceptions and seeming hypocritical aspects of its nature, but the fundamental drive is a positive one as it is to try and better the environment humanity exercises its mental muscles within. This in itself drives a moral collective ideal that underpins modern world culture . . . in my opinion.
Any society is so complex as to offer multitudinous exceptions and seeming hypocritical aspects of its nature, but the fundamental drive is a positive one as it is to try and better the environment humanity exercises its mental muscles within. This in itself drives a moral collective ideal that underpins modern world culture . . . in my opinion.
If a collection of beings had an innate moral faculty built-in to realise they shouldn't eat each other then they would not have the need to learn such a concept of compassion. You could say then that from a human perspective they have no need for morals as a concept as they exhibit collective-perpetuating characteristics by rote. But this wouldn't negate the need for moral behaviours to exist whether they are aware of them or not, or label them as such or not. Morality is a line of what is and isn't acceptable and the line can be drawn to many different degress but a line I suggest must be drawn to stop animals from innately ripping apart another animal if they are to live in a collective.
If the lack of morality was in itself a naturally selected attribute, as
in by mindlessly devouring anything around it the animal somehow
furthered its individualistic and/or collective cause (whether the
collective's size is only the cells collected within an individual, or a
collection of such "individuals") then maybe a lack of morality would
be a plausible mode. But what of "biological morality" where cells and
organelles follow a set of "moral" rules to not pince resources or
attack and devour neighbouring cells etc. etc. and so on. Morality would
seem to be an innate prerequisite for biology to evolve systems at all
let alone into sentient existence . . ?
Even insects have to not feed members of their own hive to their young, as a general rule. There is always a system of morality whether it is conscious or hardcoded. There has to be lines that aren't crossed for any society to function.
And again I reiterate that biological systems themselves rely upon just such a hardcoded morality. Cells within the body that lose their ability to follow the rules create cancers etc.
That isn't to say one couldn't seek to construct a system where an amoral framework functioned on some level . . . but I fear any such system would be swallowed up by competing modes that did exhibit moral-type behaviours . . .
Even insects have to not feed members of their own hive to their young, as a general rule. There is always a system of morality whether it is conscious or hardcoded. There has to be lines that aren't crossed for any society to function.
And again I reiterate that biological systems themselves rely upon just such a hardcoded morality. Cells within the body that lose their ability to follow the rules create cancers etc.
That isn't to say one couldn't seek to construct a system where an amoral framework functioned on some level . . . but I fear any such system would be swallowed up by competing modes that did exhibit moral-type behaviours . . .