A Discussion Continued: Sources of Morality
June 25th 2009 21:32
To continue where we left off. . . ahh, but I must say something first. I have noticed that my blog, while attractin a fairly large number of votes, has attracted no comments. If anyone would like to comment on something I may have been missing, feel free. I will read them and answer them to the best of my ability in the next column. If the question at hand has been addressed in a previous post or an outside source, I will make reference to that source.
With that uninspiring (but common and neccesary) bit of prose out of the way, let us continue our discussion of the sources of morality (hmm, I'm starting to sound like a college professor.) Right away, I'm going to discard the notion that human beings, without culture, would forever be at each other's throats like snarling animals. Anyway, the phrase "like snarling animals" holds little meaning when you are talking about a single species. Animals have a primitive sense of morality within their own species. They do not kill, or steal mates or food, except when it is absolutely neccessary to their personal survival. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. Species who engaged in pointless, wholesale slaughter of their own species have a better chance of destroying themselves then those that do not. Some, seeking to undermine this argument, might claim that such behavior acts as a "selection pressure" for strength and cunning. However, nature already "thins the herd" on its own. This particular behavior would reduce the gene pool to "below acceptable" levels. It would also mean that their would be many more creatures of one sex than of the other (since one sex is usually bigger and stronger in any species, if the animal in question is fighting with it's own species all of the time, selection favors the stronger sex. Or gender. Whatever. Do I have to be politically collect when I'm talking about an undefined "animal"?!?) To put it in human terms, imagine that we kept just the top fifty NFL quarterbacks and eight Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders alive. Since an adult female can only bear one child per year. . . well, this isn't going to work out very well, is it? And if, during the period of pregnancy, the males attack and kill the females (remember, our creature has no morality), our numbers get even worse. Of the survivors, what are the chances that one will be a carrier for a deadly genetic disorder? As you can see, strength and beauty aren't everything when it comes to creating a "survivor" race. It also helps to have a wide gene pool. Thus, creatures are evolutionarily receptive to the display of intra-species (but not intra-species) morality. Since homo sapiens are a type of animal, this is true of them as well. If it was not true, we wouldn't be here.
With that uninspiring (but common and neccesary) bit of prose out of the way, let us continue our discussion of the sources of morality (hmm, I'm starting to sound like a college professor.) Right away, I'm going to discard the notion that human beings, without culture, would forever be at each other's throats like snarling animals. Anyway, the phrase "like snarling animals" holds little meaning when you are talking about a single species. Animals have a primitive sense of morality within their own species. They do not kill, or steal mates or food, except when it is absolutely neccessary to their personal survival. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense. Species who engaged in pointless, wholesale slaughter of their own species have a better chance of destroying themselves then those that do not. Some, seeking to undermine this argument, might claim that such behavior acts as a "selection pressure" for strength and cunning. However, nature already "thins the herd" on its own. This particular behavior would reduce the gene pool to "below acceptable" levels. It would also mean that their would be many more creatures of one sex than of the other (since one sex is usually bigger and stronger in any species, if the animal in question is fighting with it's own species all of the time, selection favors the stronger sex. Or gender. Whatever. Do I have to be politically collect when I'm talking about an undefined "animal"?!?) To put it in human terms, imagine that we kept just the top fifty NFL quarterbacks and eight Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders alive. Since an adult female can only bear one child per year. . . well, this isn't going to work out very well, is it? And if, during the period of pregnancy, the males attack and kill the females (remember, our creature has no morality), our numbers get even worse. Of the survivors, what are the chances that one will be a carrier for a deadly genetic disorder? As you can see, strength and beauty aren't everything when it comes to creating a "survivor" race. It also helps to have a wide gene pool. Thus, creatures are evolutionarily receptive to the display of intra-species (but not intra-species) morality. Since homo sapiens are a type of animal, this is true of them as well. If it was not true, we wouldn't be here.
| 99 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
