All social mammals evolved ethical instincts for empathy and altruism - are these not moral absolutes?

Question

Sure, it doesn't answer specific questions of whether or not it is right or wrong to go 3 MPH over the speed limit, but does it provide enough baseline to be considered an absolute?

j h:

Oh, that's right, no proof, no proof at all for evolution, it's just a big bad scientific conspiracy.

Go read your Bible and stop wasting our time.

Matthew T:

As I show in my details, obviously they don't answer specifics, nor do they have an overriding compunction -- we can weaken these instincts if we so choose.

When I speak of a moral absolute, I'm not speaking of a compunction, I'm speaking of a philosophical fundamental axiom.

Are these two sufficient upon which to apply logic to come to moral determinations?

Answer 1

I believe it is very close.

These instincts obviously benefit us, as they make it easy for us to understand one another, help each other and therefore live together and succeed as a species. But we also have the intelligence to use them in ways possibly nature did not intend. That is where the issue of moral absolutes is found.

Answer 2

Good question. But no, I wouldn't say this is enough to call these "absolute", because they're vague enough to have some conflicts with other actions of rational interest. For example, we do have an overriding survival drive, and "altruism" doesn't work when you're dealing with 1 on 1 with a dangerous individual. Though like somebody else already said, I do think studies like this in sociology shed some light on the origins of religious-based moral codes.

Answer 3

We have an ability to imagine ourselves in other people's shoes. This ability then leads to the possibility of empathy.

But empathy is just a feeling and feelings have no moral authority over us. What moral obligation do I owe to a feeling? Can you not alter your empathic feelings? Ignore a beggar on the street and before long, you won't even see the beggar. And doesn't our society try to manipulate us through empathy?

If our feelings of empathy evolved naturally millions of years ago under entirely different circumstances, should we obey those feelings or should we put those feelings to the test of logic?

Shouldn't our moral decisions be based upon logic and not just upon feelings?

Answer 4

It could be if it was the same for all creatures/people, but this is not the case.

Maybe it could be seen as an absolute for an individual, although I think as life goes on our understanding of morality changes, well for more people anyway.

So I guess there is no moral absolute?

Answer 5

Perhaps even better than an absolute, it gives us a framework for understanding HOW we look at ethical issues.

Answer 6

empathy is o.k. ,altruism or the profession thereof is a character flaw and may be a precursor to psychosis.

Answer 7

Of course, you have no proof.