Is it? There seems to be altruism in non-human species today. I don’t see why ethical beginnings couldn’t have come from some non-human ancestor. But perhaps you’re including those.
Cremony had a pretty good answer to this, responding in the 19th century to folks that claimed native Americans were too barbarous to even have a code of ethics: “if you think Apaches don’t know the difference between right and wrong - try wronging one, and see what happens”. 
I suspect that, while there are considerable differences between the ethical systems of any two cultures, or the same culture in different periods, the similarities by far outnumber the differences - and at base, most ethical systems are premised on treating others based on some version of the golden rule.
I agree that our primate ancestsors certainly displayed some of that, and I’d go further - I think that the anticipation of such treatment of others is very much a part of primate evolution, and presumably part of the evolution of any creature that has conciousness.
Yes, definitely. I was meaning from the humans or other animals, not a supernatural force.
Humanists resolve this issue by using shared values as the basis for the ethical system. For example, we’re all living humans and we all value our own lives, so we place a high value on human life. We may disagree on when the status of “human life” begins, but we agree on the fundamental.
Of course, humanism isn’t objectively correct or valid. It’s just pretty much the best we can do as a society. I say that as a humanist. A Christian might say that we’d be better off studying the Bible and trying to interpret God’s ethical system. We’ll disagree on that, though, so we have to come back to the fundamentals on which we do agree. We will definitely have differences of opinion on a lot of issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage.) We work out those differences at the polls and in the courts, and both sides try to use ethics arguments to support their sides.
Nice summary.
Please be careful not to add fuel to the fire of confusion between the “moral sense” and morality or ethics. I doubt you have any such confusion, but it’s an often-made mistake especially among those criticizing an educated approach to ethics.
Our understanding of ethics is no doubt affected by our moral sense. But, our moral sense is merely an emotional organ created by evolution, and is not an infallible guide to what is right and wrong. We may feel justified to kill our lover’s lover, or our new woman’s children from another man, but hopefully our ethics forbids it. (There’s a whole host of other cases, where if we allow our moral sense to dictate right and wrong, we’re screwed. For example, rape may be justified by an evolutionary argument, but it is not ethically justified by any ethical system we should use for public policy.)
We all have some influence on our moral systems. The acceptance of gay rights over the past thirty years is a profound change in our moral system, and was brought about by the moral influence of we individual millions. Some people are more influential than others, as was, for instance, Rosa Parks.
Scientists discover facts about the world that don’t make intuitive sense. This is because the human mind, for all its impressive qualities, is limited and hampered by its evolutionary history. If someone stamps their feet and says they don’t like the facts because it makes them uncomfortable or doesn’t fit into the way they think the world should work we say they’re being stubborn or childish.
But no one makes uncomfortable discoveries about ethics, as far as I can tell. People just latch onto whatever makes them feel good. No one goes “Wow, that is really weird. Revolting, even. But it must be true, all the evidence says so.”
Philosophers have tried to create logical systems of ethics. AFAIK they all break down into paradoxes and conundrums. They all have a thought experiment that undermines them and puts their axioms into a pretzel. So again, people just choose what makes them feel good. If anyone disagrees, feel free to drop a link.
Or people try to put them to a watered down test, like in game theory. I guess we’re all tit for tatters now, huh?
I remember reading an article in Scientific American that said when people are exposed to literature saying that free will doesn’t exist they act more selfishly and anti-social. If that’s true should it be hidden? Figure that one out.
As for animal morality and altruism, it’s kinda beside the point from the OP but some of you sound straight outta the 1950s. I guess animals don’t have emotions either, or a need to balance individual goals vs. that of the social unit. They’re all robots and humans were touched on the forehead by the finger of God almighty.
Goes back at least as far as Plato’s Republic: if it makes a happy, healthy, sane, peaceful, productive society…can we justify basing it all on a deliberate, conscious lie?
I’ve heard proponents of various religions arguing, “It doesn’t matter whether my religion is true or not: people who follow it are happier than people who don’t. So we should all belong to it.”
It’s an interesting game-theoretic utilitarian position, and not necessarily a wrong one. If the suffering caused by compulsory practice of that religious faith is significantly outweighed by the social benefits – reduction in the crime rate, increases in education and health statistics – wouldn’t we be durn fools not to mandate such beliefs?
Yeah, “Behaviorism” got a little out of control back in the day. There is a lot of truth to behaviorism, to be sure. Animals (and people) do respond in certain stereotyped ways to certain stimuli.
But I can’t believe that anyone who has ever raised a pet doggie from a little puppy could ever be so dull as to imagine that dogs have no emotions! They’re just big happy bundles of love (with some additional fear, anger, lust, jealousy, and greed tossed in the mix.)
Grasshoppers, not so much.
That was Kant’s position, which was used to justify a lot of horrifically cruel treatment of animals.
I disagree that there are no surprise moments in ethical philosophy, though. Existentialism came as a bit of a surprise to many, for example. But, they’re certainly not quite the same kinds of surprises we get from objective reality, so your point stands.
Actually, I did have one more question (that I have wanted to ask a philosopher, for some time now, in fact). Then I will let this thread die a peaceful death.
Some of you say, there is nothing intrinsically good or bad/intrinsically motivating. But what about pain? Pain is universally experienced as bad, by whomever experiences it (even though I realize people’s view of it might be different). And it seems to me, pain is “intrinsically motivating” too (if I am using that word [motivating], the right way).
Of course the only thing this “truth” (if indeed I am using that word correctly) leads to, is a kind of crude hedonism. But it seems to me that is still better than nothing.
Please correct me if I am wrong (and BTW, I already realize I likely am, in at least some way:)).
Even masochists?
Or, for that matter, athletes?