Evolution of Morality
While writing an article about Rabbi Moshe Averick's crazy argument during a break from exam revision (a slippery slope fest of immense silliness that links it to beastiality and paedophilia. Atheism... not exam revision that is...), I came up with something a bit sensible.
"And the human value system. AKA rules and morality is a survival skill. Human beings are weak and useless on their own. In groups our survival rises exponentially mainly because we can specialise in our efforts and make technology that enables this. You need a specific number of hunter gatherers to have a stone chipper who makes hunter gathering more effective. You need a specific number of carpenters to help make houses but to support them you need wood cutters and to support them you need farmers and to get all the different people to support each other we need a system of rules that helps us get along. That is what morality and rules come from. It's evolutionarily sound since societies without moral codes aren't nice places to live in while ones with liberal accepting codes are seen as nice places to live in. For instance Somalia plain sucks and is like living in a post apocalyptic wasteland, Saudi Arabia while a lot nicer than somalia excludes a lot of people and it's strict moral code means it is very exclusive but the UK has nice social rules that are accepting of a variety of people and thus is liked. The social acceptance of various groups in the UK makes it stronger than Saudi Arabia and Somalia and a much nicer place to live in because of that. It's why people want to go to the UK to live and work and not to Saudi Arabia or indeed Somalia. "
So what do people think? Would this be an evolutionary bonus to moral behaviour? That the rules of law that we have exist because it is advantageous to live by a unifying set of rules and that it would give you a benefit?
If you want to see the my whole argument against his nonsense...