Interbane wrote:Kry: "However, isn’t morality supposed to be universal?"

Morality isn't universal. Cultures have a different sense of what constitutes a moral act. Neither is it absolute. Even killing can be considered a moral act in some(extreme) circumstances.

Let me rephrase myself a bit... According to de Waal, isn't the leaning toward a cultural morality a genetic universal? And if the leaning toward a cultural morality is a genetic universal, wouldn't that support the in-group protection philosophy?

I think the way in which culture affects morality is different than how in-group vs out-group thinking affects morality. There is a large part of morality that must be learned. We have the mechanisms that influence us to behave in what we know to be moral ways, but much of that knowledge is taught to us. Different cultures have variations in what they consider moral behavior.

What do you mean by in-group protection philosophy?

Interbane wrote:What do you mean by in-group protection philosophy?

In Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus defines justice as helping friends and harming enemies. Socrates critiques Thrasymachus by arguing that justice should be fair. Here you have a debate about in-group protection philosophy.

Interbane wrote: Morality isn't universal. Cultures have a different sense of what constitutes a moral act. Neither is it absolute. Even killing can be considered a moral act in some(extreme) circumstances.

Possibly, we're getting into the area of customs here, rather than of morality as de Waal defines it. He does say that every culture has evolved a sense of morality equivalent to the Golden Rule (is this a fact?), and it appears to be this sense of morality that he uses in the book.

Morality is how we draw the lines and maintain the borders of acceptable behavior: it is the matrix of values, beliefs and practices that foster the kinds of deeds that produce the kind of culture and individuals we most value....these people behaving this way produces the kind of world we want to live in: this is morality.

This includes any number of behaviors- actually, anything is possible: depending upon the kind of people required to produce the kind of world sought after. And it may be that a kind of morality is utilized to produce nothing more than one kind of person- actually one single person...the whole of a culture's beliefs and practices geared and patterned to give birth to a single human being...all manner of weeding, thinning, pruning and chopping off of unneccessary, unhealthy, undesirable portions of the population is practiced, and even celebrated: these expulsions, eliminations, eradications become moral deeds- each one a sacrifice, a sacred deed to uphold and further a holy objective.

To avoid these terrible tasks would be immoral: a shirking of one's moral duties, unacceptable acts of selfish disregard for the great and mighty goal of giving birth to the one...

Interbane wrote:What do you mean by in-group protection philosophy?

By in-group protection philosophy, I mean the tendency to protect those inside one's group (friends, family, self) over those outside one's group. It's as if a completely different moral code arises.

I think part of that is culturally motivated - at least in some cultures. For example, I was raised in a family first environment. So, for me, protecting my family can put me in a moral dilema rather quickly. In-group and culture are combined for me.

Ahh, the use of the word protection threw me off. Conduct towards people who share your genes includes more than protection. I also think it's more of a science than a philosophy, although the ground-breaking has only just begun. People have a vested interest in relatives, since it increases the likelihood their genes(or relative genes) will be passed on.

If your culture influences you to pay attention to family first, that coincides with in-group predispositions, doesn't it? In the military, service before self was stressed, yet so was family first. Even the military gave equal weight to both family ties and discipline.

DH: "the whole of a culture's beliefs and practices geared and patterned to give birth to a single human being...all manner of weeding, thinning, pruning and chopping off of unneccessary, unhealthy, undesirable portions of the population is practiced..."

So it would be immoral of me to say you're bonkers for wanting to kill a lot of people to weed their behavior from the gene pool so that a fictional baby superman can be born? Lay off the drugs DH.

I don't take a side in a debate about whether emotion or reason is primary in us, but one thought that came to me from de Waal's essay is that, when it comes to morality, knowing is not enough. There must also be some emotional attachment, some wanting to do the right thing. We say that we don't need religion to tell us what is moral or ethical, that religion just underlines what humans have a natural sense of, and this is probably true, but is wanting to do the moral thing entirely natural, needing no intensive boost from the culture? I would say no, that some strenuous effort needs to exist on a continuing basis. Religion could serve this function, and probably does for many, but its tactics have often been not appropriate at all (fear of punishment, lure of reward). To command people to have this emotional attachment to the good might sound odd, as in the bible's Great Commandment, but perhaps it works.

Interesting, but supposing that Vaneer Theory (VT) was really just a metaphor...like naturalistic morality...just another perspective that cannot be observed tightly wrapped up in image. It would seem then that it is actually the notion refering to the ability for some type of relevant observation that is the problem. The tight grip of an "image redefinition across time" rather than the meaning that is the focus. Behaviorism is unfavored after all...too...inaccurate...too...open for...redefinition, in a word a sloppy method of analysis. Isn't it? Or does that not matter? The philosopher...he has yet to define the difference between the moral and the psychological - maybe because there really isn't one - splits the difference when it suits, yet everywhere else loves to pander about abstract relationship.

For me the beast in man is the feral cat, the stray who no longer returns for supper but rummages through the trash for scraps of meat and rotted milk.