So say we look at a “typical”, or representative, sentient species.
How will their behaviour compare to ours, at a comparative level of technological development?
(obviously this is a completely speculative thread, WAG to the power of Graham’s number)
On the one hand, I find the concept of instinctively benevolent aliens implausible, because they are products of evolution after all*, “red in tooth and claw”.
And arguably, things like lying and cheating are inevitable characteristics (some even argue dishonesty is a necessary developmental step to reach the cognitive level that we have achieved).
On the other hand, there are specific features of homo sapiens and our world that might make us more warlike than the norm. We’re instinctively tribal; we organise into groups, then compete with other groups – this is perfect for war.
And we have two genders, split approximately 50:50 in proportion. I suspect that this might be a setup that promotes direct conflict (for reasons too complex to go into in the OP).
So I’m wavering between “same as us” and “better than us”.
I’m restricting this to races created by evolution. Even though we may encounter artificial intelligences first.
Moral by who’s definition? We (Earthlings) can’t always agree what’s moral by our standards and even those change over time.
Just use a fictional example. Klingons are a warrior race. Suicide because of a disability is moral to them, even honorable while we would view it as cowardly.
I mean how much concern they will have for the will / rights of others.
Say that you have an item which is of minor worth to an individual of this hypothetical race. Would they be prepared to kill you for it? Steal it? Or would they instinctively find such behaviour undesirable?
I think it’s more nuanced than that.
Most people would find killing a person to be a difficult thing to do; it’s not something we could coldly and casually do for a small material gain.
However, people outside our group don’t seem like real people to us. We have far less of a problem killing “generic enemy”.
I’m sure that their morals would be just the same as ours-they would either stun us or hit us over the head with a large metal club humanely before cutting our bodies up for food.
My argument would be that a species that has advanced as far as interstellar travel must have learned how to cooperate on a large scale within the species, just as humans have done, and that cooperation would likely be based on some ethical system.
(That does not mean, of course, that they would behave so nicely with an alien species like us, but similarly, who knows what we would do to them?)
Either an ethical system or by turning individuals into units whose behavior is completely programmed. That possibility has been examined by science fiction as far back as H.G. Wells’s First Men in the Moon.
I would not necessarily call suicide due to a disability the act of a coward. I would have objected in Worf’s case because he had a duty to his son, but absent that I saw his point and would not have attempted to stop him with anything other than words.
I reluctantly voted yes, though what I wanted was “could aliens be more moral” not “WILL…”. The reason is, with how people behave today? It wouldn’t take much for it to be better and more moral than it is.