Hierarchy Of Morality

Excerpt from "The Immorality of Morals and the Future of Amorality"

Most authors seem to promote one or the other of two functions for morality, internal cohesion and external threat. However morality served both equally well. In Darwinism, Dominance and Democracy by Somit and Peterson, the authors state, "Humans are social primates, closely (almost embarrassingly) akin genetically to the chimpanzees and only slightly less so to the gorillas. Working over at least 10 million years, natural selection has endowed the social primates with a predisposition (to understate the matter) for hierarchical social structures. That is, they invariably form groups, troops, tribes, and societies characterized by marked differences in individual status in terms of dominance and submission, command and obedience, and by unequal access to many of the good things of life. This form of morality then serves inclusive fitness; it is there for one reason, to improve the survivability of the tribe. SOMIT AND PETERSON later state, "Indoctrinability, then, together with dominance, hierarchy, and obedience, is one of the innate behavioral capacities and characteristics of our species. As might be expected, in most instances indoctrinability serves to support and reinforce these generally authoritarian tendencies. Under other and fairly special conditions, though, indoctrinability provides a window of opportunity for the acceptance of democratic ideas and of political actions that, if successful, lead to the establishment of a democratic polity." And later, "From a neo-Darwinian perspective, individual selection for indoctrinability in a language-capable species makes sound evolutionary sense. When individuals accept the same values, conflict and violence will be diminished, resulting in a more stable society. From the vantage point of the conforming individual, relative order and tranquility, in turn, are likely to result in greater reproductive success and, hence, inclusive fitness."

The idea of morals and values are one of the most debated topics in the world of critical thinking. Life times can be spent philosophizing about the morality of our human race and the shared "innate" values. Hence forth this excerpt which talks directly (as well as indirectly) about the genealogy of values and morals in a society of humans comparatively to that of nature.

There are many ideas brought forth from this paragraph, most stemming from the doctor of the Natural Selection, Charles Darwin. The basis of Darwin's studies stem from change over a long period of time for the betterment of a group or species. Darwin's studies that mostly of physiological changes revert to development of needed traits for the increased survival of a group. Included in this survival or fitness is the mental capacitity for which we choose to use are selected and evolved skills. This choice is, where over time, nature and science provide a more sure truth of what right is (continual survival of a group) versus wrong (extinction or death).

Although the arguments of the above article use doctrine of science to approach the idea of showing morality as "provided by nature", but, I choose to, through philosophical means prove an alternative source for our value system or hierarchy.

Three of my favorite philosophers will help me serve my point on this topic. Plato argued that humans are born with innate thoughts. Being Innate meant that inner knowledge or thoughts had been obtained without the aid of empirical senses. Plato