Farhad

I see the assumption that morality is a human invention as problematic because it doesn’t ask what morality is, or where it came from, but simply deals with definitions of morality that are provided by the multitude of individuals & organisations intent on manipulating humans to support nefarious brands of politics, religion & commerce, etc.I suggest that morality evolved in our ancestors as a survival mechanism long before the emergence of modern humans, that it exists today to a recognisable degree in other life forms, that it is innate to humanity & that without that innate morality which underpins the human ability to cooperate human society would not have occurred in its current forms. The fact that immorality also exists & that most humans are comparatively easy to manipulate by liars, cheats & thieves does not negate the value of morality which underpins any “justice, fairness, or any higher principle” that exist today & which truly does make it “both necessary and tragically inadequate”. Clearly there are no guarantees. Morality does makes sense, but we clever apes still have have problems recognising what sense looks like, so there’s still a very long way for us to go.

No, it is based on our prehistoric instincts, and that is it. If they kill your family, you will do more than if a stranger’s family is killed. The super-rich have so much money that an astounding number of people could have lived. Also, people compete with each other, no matter how sophisticated the hierarchical systems are. Look, there are millions of ways morality could look. Your relative has money, so he or she could give it to you to help you have a new baby. And you can think of millions of options.What I wanted to say is that there were lots of fights just to have at least this kind of morality. There were an unbelievable number of moral systems, and morality differs across the globe.