3 ms·

So, how, exactly does that not boil down to <might makes right>? It boils down exactly to might makes right, also know as "natural law". Everything else brings

So, how, exactly does that not boil down to <might makes right>? It boils down exactly to might makes right, also know as "natural law". Everything else brings the argument into religious territory by assuming an absolute moral standard. (Which is fine by the way, as long as we explicitly call it out and argue from it in a consistent manner - and understand that we are crossing the border of science and philosophy when we do)

toss1 7y ago
Actually, we can look to many studies of pre-linguistic children, primates, and birds showing that ALL of them show a significantly developed sense of fairness. We can also look to vast quantities of documented examples of altruistic behavior in studies far "down" the animal scale. There is substantial theory growing that religious and moral attitudes, cultural structures, and laws emerged from these innate qualities, rather than being some human invention. Here's an article on just two: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/true-altruism-seen-chimpanzees-giving-clues-evolution-human-cooperation https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/true-altruism-seen-c... So, this "natural law" that you posit at the top/root of all behavior evaluation is actually quite shaky, and it is not at all clear that it has the priority you claim. It looks far more like a justification for might being right. By that standard, it'd be ok for me to steal your pay, enslave you, or simply kill you for the $10 in your pocket if merely had the means & whim, with all concerns about fairness, ethics, morality, relegated to the minor realm of "religious territory". Yet even a chimp, dog, elephant, or dolphin would know that it's wrong.