Natural selection is good enough to determine fundamental laws like theft or murder but i still don't believe it is enough to replace morality A society can be both competitive and better adapted to survive yet produce a certain disgust at its existence. There is a something that drives us to not accept injustice regardless of race or class interestsTo put it another way. This lizard is gray. Gray lizards are harder to find for birds. Green lizards die off, gray lizards continue. That is not enough to write a law code, or answer the question of why continue living at all
>>18627486>Natural selection is good enough to determine fundamental laws like theft or murderOkay. How?
>>18627501A society that does not punish or act in some way to avoid its own destruction does not survive. Maybe i give too much credit even to this. Maybe the evidence of chimpanzees patroling territories and carrying out revenge killings is circumstancial, and you can survive just fine without the concept of private property.But anarchy, as in the complete lack of laws, only appears to be circunstancial across history, with either governments or tribal customs re-establishing some sort of "law"
>>18627547You've confused a law of nature for a moral or ethical system. This is basically what you're saying:>Gravity is good enough to determine building codes like carrying capacity or structural integrity but i still don't believe it is enough to replace moralityThe very fact that you think natural selection is in the category of morality at all shows you don't understand either very well.
>>18627547You should compare humans to eusocial animals. When it comes to culture we are closest to them.
