Source: Facebook

MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE

We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true.

But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict.

We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict.

That means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.

There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges for matters of conflict.

It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition.

We may not like this. But then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances.

We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on.

The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability.

But those differences remain decidable.

Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.