Six Iranians arrested for dancing to promote islam

My point being species on the whole do group. Some members of the species don't. The overall reason they do is evolutionary in that there are clear survival advantages and benefits.

The loner is not denied or restricted or advantaged in the natural evolutionary capacity to hold a moral code. He's no homesteader and lives outside of community but for no reason than he feels they look cute, and being no Elmer Fud, he won't kill and eat rabbits.
He holds it morally right not to go against his instincts for a convenience. It's not logical as he needs all the resources he can get.

Apparently you're saying morals come from logic and I'm pointing out logic and morals are due to natural evolutionary processes. Natural selection determining what and which variations of them survives.

 

I don't see the moral component to the survival instinct. But the discussion has been pleasant.

 

For humans, social behavior is survival. So humans being good instead of bad to each other, morality, aids their survival.

 

Cooperating with others and adopting the golden rule as moral standards, may directly benefit and improve evolutionary survival. Apparently it does. It may not. Natural selection is the outcome.

Thanks for the exchange

 

What aids survival is a logical choice, not a moral one. If we were logical, we would limit all heterosexual couples to one child in order to reduce the population rather than face widespread starvation. If we were logical, we would ban the burning of fossil fuels. If we were logical, we would ban all activities which pollute the water. If we were logical, we would make contraceptives freely available to everyone.

And so on . . .

 

You could have left out "It may not".


"Tonight's program, The Ten Commandments................brought to you by..........Nature.
Nature, improving things slowly, day by day, epoch by epoch. We bring good things to life."

 

yes but then it wouldn't be an accurate reflection would it?. The environment is what it is. Successfully adapting to it (and not destroying it!) means survival.
Following the golden rule seems greatly beneficial to survival. But doesn't always.

 

As when it's abbreviated to Do Unto Others.

 

Yet non of that logic matters to the illogical morals of the non homesteader. He can logically let the whole world die out and go on his way. He continues because he didn't get poisoned by eating polluted rabbit meat.
Morals not logic, meant he survived. His instinct, not his logical or moral decision, is to mate.

When push comes to shove, capacities for instinct, logic and morality , being the result of a natural evolutionary process.

 

In what way?