Morality from Nature?

[Valknor]

Is it right for the wolf to hunt the deer? Is the deer acting justly when it flees from the wolf? Both are acting in accordance with their nature, driven by an instinct to survive.

Social animals belong to groups, enabling their members to thrive, or at least increasing their chances to survive and reproduce. For the group to function, social behavioral norms must be established and enforced. Without these norms, the group dissolves into atomized individuals, each acting in its own interest without cooperation. A lone wolf is at a significant disadvantage. Pack membership allows coordinated hunts, protection of offspring, and control of a larger territory.

Does it matter if these norms are rationalized if the results are the same? And if it matters not, can we agree that both social animals and humans possess morality?

Religious readers may be inclined to reject this premise. If there is a creator, it seems reasonable that He would have left His signature in the natural world. If this be true, then could social animals not possess some form of morality, perhaps in a more rudimentary form?

Throughout human history, people have operated under some sort of moral framework. That humans require a common moral code to function socially is easily demonstrated. Without morality, life would be as Hobbs so aptly put "nasty, brutal and short". Morality therefore is virtually universal in that nearly every human group had a moral code which was required to maintain group cohesion. However, morality seems contextual in that the components of a people's moral code is developed for a given society, existing at a specific time. Ancient Egypt, Rome, and China for examples had societal norms that are different in those same areas today, just as contemporary humans operate under different moral systems throughout the world. Human morality then is in a constant state of flux, and highly contextual.

This is in part why massive numbers of immigrants from a different culture are so difficult to assimilate. They have operated under a different moral framework which served their peoples' needs. They are being asked to abandon beliefs they grew up with and accept a foreign peoples morality which they have no faith in. This is further complicated if they have no shared heritage (religious, genetic, cultural) with the host population.

As I said in the beginning, morality is adopted to advance group interests. The highest crime in any moral system is treason- betrayal of tribe, nation, god(s)- these have frequently carried the death penalty. Group survival whether secular or religious is always the foundation of a moral code, anything that runs contrary to this is traditionally ruthlessly eliminated.

It is for these reasons why I believe all attempts to unite humanity under a common moral system are doomed to fail. It would be better if we could learn not to impose our systems (moral and otherwise) upon those who prefer their own. And to let each people live in peace within their own lands.