MORALS MAY BE RELATIVE BUT MORALITY IS ABSOLUTE. (really) Reciprocity is an evol

MORALS MAY BE RELATIVE BUT MORALITY IS ABSOLUTE.

(really)

Reciprocity is an evolutionary necessity for a cooperative species of marginal differences in capabilities. And this sensitivity must evolve in parallel to cooperation.

We universally sense reciprocity and reward it, and sense irreciprocity and punish it – so it must have genetic origins.

Moral senses vary by gender, and within males, reflecting our different reproductive strategies. This variation is consistent so it must have genetic origins.

Moral sensitivity applies only to kin and in-group members, or potential outgroup members, and effectively dissipates with kin-distance. This again is an evolutionary necessity.

However, given that property allocations (of all kinds) vary from group to group, and therefore the set of changes that cause us to sense reciprocity and irreciprocity, vary from group to group.

And we can be fooled (as we have been) by complexity of information that overloads our genetic ability to sense changes in state and therefore reciprocity.

For these reasons it is not correct to say that morality is relative, but instead, that it is ALWAYS decidable if we must decide matters of conflict either within group or without group by pure reciprocity.

Instead, moral decidability always exists regardless of gender, kin-distance, and culture. But we must choose to decide by local group moral norms, or objective moral norms depending upon whether the question we are deciding is between in group and out-group members.

There is only one possible law for sentient beings in general, one possible for humans in general, and one possible for each in-group.

Curt Doolittle