I joined the Philosophy Club at school this quarter. During one of the meetings we were talking about the roots of morality. The token Christian zealot declared that morality is ultimately objective and inherent, and is nothing more than what is good in the eyes of God. That’s obviously not a particularly lengthy or interesting discussion about the roots of morality. In response, another member suggested that morality evolved right along with humans, growing more complex as the species did.
I hadn’t ever really devoted time to this issue before, but I liked this evolutionary perspective immediately. It seemed to fit my intuition well, so I helped him elaborate. If humans started as scavengers, fending for themselves, the original and most basic moral unit is the person. The first layer of morality, then, is based solely on the self and self survival.
After that, there were hunter-gatherers. The notions of groups or clans evolved and people had more to look out for. If one was to survive successfully in a clan, one had to have a layer of clan morality. Somewhere around there the notion of family emerged and there too was a layer for morality of the family. The obvious progression after this is morality of society or state.
When I say “morality of family” I mean the moral implications involved with promoting and preserving wellness in a family. The same goes for the individual and the state. For instance, if a person sees injustice in a court of law, it is moral [concerning the state] for him to challenge it. Nothing about this situation appeals to his family or self in the general case, so it’s easy to see that it falls within the morality of the state.
Likewise, it is moral for a woman to defend her husband and children because it promotes wellness for the family. Again, this is not something that deals with the state or her self in the general case, but only the morality of the family. One could easily imagine a case where it’s moral to act in one’s own self interest because that’s the most basic of all morality — that which promotes survival of the self.
This was all very interesting so I thought I’d write about it a bit here. Then I read Starship Troopers and saw this theory in an almost identical form. In Chapter 8, Heinlein expounds upon the structure of his futuristic society and gives a very similar account of human morality. It was neat to read that right after having thought about it.
You are not a very good writer, and your statements are wrong, or at the very least, grossly uneducated. (Can I post that? Are you willing to censor honest opinion, so that your blog remains a blemish-free reflection of your ego?)
As always, I am open to constructive criticism and refutation. I will not, however, tolerate insults or general insolence. Stating that an insult is an “honest opinion” doesn’t make it any less of an insult. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most insults are honest opinion.
I have no delusions about a blemish-free ego nor do I project that image to anyone.
Your comments like this one have absolutely no intellectual merit and do not contribute constructively to anything whatsoever. Your pursuit of so-called “honesty”, possibly in the name of “truth” or “liberty” is ridiculous in the face of real truth because it lacks precisely the core manifestation of truth — evidence.
Of course if you feel compelled to let the rest of the world in on your incredibly insightful, infallible, and objectively true world view, by all means proceed.
Any further comments from you that do not adhere to the debate or theory-refutation pattern will simply be ignored.
Well Well Well, it looks like Jibe is quiet the little troll now a days. For you to say h3h is a “poor writer” and “grossly uneducated” is quiet funny. I’ve read your other comments in regards to this blog Jibe, and every single one is some low brow attempt by you to sound superior. Your comments are completely unbased, not to mention trollish.
I think Brad might have a secret admirer in the form of an evil,troubled heckler. I question his attachment to this website. Sort of kinky if you ask me.
I don’t think i’m comfortable with your mother making sexual inferences about my behaviour. Does that conform to your standard of civil discourse?
I think it’s funny. Loosen up. :)
Same to you.
Brad’s mom rules. :)
I agree, though for different reasons. She has talents beyond her conversational wit.
Your Mom Rules! :D
If you were any more mature, jibe, they might give you an award or something.
I don’t get it.