Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
But it also means that morality is merely a survival mechanism and is only relevant so long as it is beneficial to survival. If at any time morality became harmful to our survival as a species, I imagine morality would still dictate that becoming amoral would be wrong, but since morality would now be obsolete, that would be irrelevant. Sorry if that doesn't make any sense. I'm not the best at getting my point across.
|
Morality is not so much about survival. It's about fitness. A lot of people confuse the two, but they're not the same. Fitness means how much you are able to add to humanity's gene pool in the future. In more plain terms, how many kids you have. Generally speaking, animals evolve to maximize fitness, not survival (which is why some male mantises famously let their partners eat them f.ex).
Morality helps people interact and cooperate peacefully without conflict. Having morale shows you are considerate and caring, traits which are commonly considered good and has helped ensure people get laid. Working together peacefully has been tremendously important to us during our evolutionary history. Besides being smart and walking on two legs, it's really one of our specialties.
Basically, morals are good to humans and so it has a worth. I understand you feel that if the environment was different, perhaps morality would evolve into something else or "disappear" entirely, but how does that devalue what morals do for us here and now?