Wyman wrote:
My point was that I can't see how logical consistency enters into ethical debates. The core values are not arrived at logically (i.e. 'I believe in God', or 'I believe killing animals is wrong'). Why then are people troubled by inconsistency in applying those values?
You have a good point, Wyman, values are subjective, however, they can be arrived at logically from clearly defined premises.
Once I attempted to do that with some success.
Here is a short version (quoted from my book: "Humane Physics")
Resolving conflicting loyalties
The suggestions I am making in this chapter should be read as guidelines that I have found useful in my own life. No one can follow them with absolute perfection, because human beings have conflicting motivations: what Edward O. Wilson called individual-level selection and group-level selection in our evolutionary process (The Meaning of Human Existence). The result of individual-level evolutionary selection predisposes us to favour our own and our progeny’s survival over the interests of our group. The result of the group-level evolutionary selection motivates us to serve the interests of the various groups we are part of. As he so eloquently states:
“We are unlikely to yield completely to either force as the ideal solution to our social and political turmoil. To give in completely to the instinctual urgings born from individual selection would be to dissolve society. At the opposite extreme, to surrender to the urgings from group selection would turn us into angelic robots - the outsized equivalents of ants.”
With these caveats, I will attempt to define human morality in a logical and systematic way that should serve as compass for future scientists when they struggle with the conflicting loyalties that they will unavoidably encounter.
The human species is a tribal species, just like wolves and gorillas. We depend on one another for survival. The question of loyalty to our tribe often conflicts with our other loyalties: to family, humanity, religion, etc.
The relationship of our social concepts can be seen as follows:
1. We have evolved with nearly identical needs for survival.
2. Our nearly identical needs created nearly identical values.
3. Our nearly identical values created a set of ethical rules (dos and don’ts)
4. Our dependence on one another created a need for loyalty to our ethical rules.
5. Our loyalty to ethical rules created an unwritten social contract apart from the laws of the land as defined by the ruling elite. Those laws are specific to one culture or one nation-state. The unwritten social contract recognizing human interdependence is universal. All cultures through history have known that murder and theft are wrong. Awareness of the rules of the social contract is called our ‘conscience’, or knowing right from wrong. This universal concept of ‘right conduct’ is called morality.
6. The unwritten social contract created standards of socially acceptable behaviour. Any act or attitude that enhances the chances of survival for the group is good. Any act or attitude that harms the chances of survival for the group is bad. Since individual members accept the protection and nourishment of the tribe, the only moral conduct is to seek individual survival/welfare only through the survival/welfare of the tribe. If the two are in conflict, the needs of the tribe come first. We call those who consistently demonstrate their willingness to defend the tribe, even at great personal sacrifice, ‘heroes’. Those who betray the tribe we call ‘traitors’ and treason is usually punishable by death or expulsion.
7. In our complicated world, individuals have simultaneous and often conflicting memberships in many groups: immediate family, extended family, friends, neighbourhood, school, work, religious denomination, political party, social organizations, nation, race, gender, species and life.
8. Resolving conflicts requires prioritizing our loyalties.
9. Since a sub-group accepts the protection and nourishment of the larger group of which it is a part, the only moral conduct is to seek survival/welfare of the sub-group ONLY through the survival/welfare of the containing group. If the two are in conflict, the needs of the containing group come first.
10. In this sense, our ultimate loyalty should be to life. Life on this planet is the ultimate containing group. We are all part of it. It nourishes us all. If we betray it, if we destroy it, we destroy ourselves.
