This conversation is closed.
Ethics: Written by Nature?
I realize that many think morals, and the evolution of ethics....has been a subjective path.
It has been. It has definitely been defined by our perception of nature.
However, people tend to state that "this has no guide or structure" as it is subjective.
That would only hold true if nature didn't have laws or governance of its own...and it does.
Humans could not have survived without cooperation. I think we can all understand that. So as it may seem subjective....morals and ethics have evolved along a path towards "unity" or "efficiency" and could not have been some "random chain of events" that leads us to some random ethical perception.
If you debate it has been guided I would have you refer to writings from as early as 350 B.C. when people wrote about "human potential" and "happiness".
As you could try an say "happiness" is subjective let me confront that.
Happiness is not a subjective term. A state of being "happy" is absolute.
Happy is merely when a human reaches the state of "contentment" in relation to his or her needs.
The question is...for a pattern or "evolutionary pattern" to exist...structure that outlines morals would have had to already be present in nature.
Crazy thought...but I think when we look at nature...nothing works without cooperation.
Adding to that...our necessity for team-work as a survival tool. It has all pointed towards a goal "cooperation" and that goal is only achieved through certain "actions" and is therefore defined making morals a "universal concept" or "law of nature".