Morality. It's a one way street.

[eye2i2hear]

A quote from some others on this road...

chippy Wrote:Empathy, the ability to feel what others feel, is an inherent human characteristic. We can even observe it in other species. Since our species would have likely not survived if it were nothing but a free for all, something had to be at work long before verbal language and the ability to "reason" philosophy. That's the model I use to help me see the point. All morality that has ever been decided, followed, preached, invented, or even conceived, wouldn't exist, had it not been for the fact that it already existed in some form... inherently. I put forth, empathy as the culprit. I don't see it as a chicken/egg dichotomy.

It just so happens, that we all have, to varying degrees, the ability to empathize. Hell, it even happens when you don't want it too. So, while each human has a slightly different inherent empathy (partly learned through experience), the individual moralities are not objective, but at least they're in the ballpark. That's why murder is generally considered to be "bad" in societies on whole. Nobody would want to lose anyone close to them, so they have a tendency to not kill others.

It's a simplistic model to be sure, but one for which I've been unable to find a decent argument against. It isn't until we actually start trying to "think" morality, that our species fucked it up.

Source: Amoralism? : Philosophy - Page 2 • Rational Skepticism Forum

Part of my initial question is along the lines of how far back (generationaly) said "inherent" goes? Akin to whether it's inherited as a meme, or "inherent" from the likes of the parental nuture of Muther Nature (with her Darwinizer)... how might "we" (today) ever know?

bonus:

Quote:From what I have been able to surmise, the road to knowledge is made almost entirely of potholes. You drive along for awhile and get an occasional jolt from hitting a bit of tarmac.