Can a person have morals

not necessarily. it depends on the resources available. if resources aren't scarce, then being selfish in regards to them isn't a big problem. the benefits of living together in a group (lots of eyes, for example) outweigh any benefit an organism would get by being able to eat all the berries it wantd -- particularly when it was able to eat all the berries it wanted anyway.

 

Sure - they can have morals, but they are still going straight to Hell on judgment day.

 

So at the very least it would be a competitive wash if resources were plenty. You aren't gonna get a many eyes benefit unless you aren't the only unselfish one.

 

they are clearly selecting their targets. they are not simply running around shooting anything that moves. that today you are my friend, but tomorrow you are my enemy. there are factions and factions have leaders. there are moral dynamics are play, even if they seem twisted and beyond comprehension.

there are probably many leaders.

 

or unless there's something out there trying to eat you or your brethren.

 

so they become unselfish when it suits them....isn't that.....selfish?

 

exactly. and thus, it's all about personal advantage in the bigger scheme.

tho truly, personal advantage is sometimes hard to discern because we're really talking about genes here and not people. genetically speaking, my brother have 3 children would be more valuable than me have 1. of course, those neices/nephews individually have less of my personal genetics than would my child, but going back a generation, my parents would see no difference in the genetic content in comparison to themselves. so which offspring are the most important to the family (or to the genes themselves)?

 

This is another one of those arguments for which there is no definate answer. I think is basically determined by how you view your fellow man. I think man's nature is to be selfish, greedy and power hungry. Watch small children and you will see this in play. Parents have to constantly tell little junior not to hurt his sibling and not to take toys from weaker kids. The idea that man simply saw the advantage of working together and out of this grew the idea of morality simply does not fit with the evidence I see around me. Morality is a learned behaviour. It is not something you are born with.

 

I think you can see that in culture today where those raised in morally lacking homes have a far greater likelyhood of being morally lacking themselves.

 

Interesting. In many ways I see more ethical behavior in my daughter's age group than I did in my own at the same age. A sense of kindness, generosity and compassion that was sorely lacking in those of us that grew up in the aftermath of WWII and the explosion of the middle class in the '50's and 60's. We were the children of privilege no matter what our economic status actually was.

I generally find people of my own demographic, from 30-55 year olds, particularly males, to be some of the most self centered, narcissistic, and ethically lacking people I've ever met. I'm not speaking of criminal behavior, but of a "me first/screw you" attitude and ethical stance. A person who would never steal a CD from a store is more than happy to DL and entire artist's collection and burn them to disc all the while decrying the behavior of a street peddler selling crack to make a living. A person who serves willingly at a church event be even more willing to hide income on their taxes and yet berate the unfairness of the welfare system. The entire dichotomy of my generation and it's moral ambiguity has little to do with religion and a lot to do with selfishness.