CopyRight @ 2003
Here are some considerations of morality in different situations. All are situations about survival, but more than to describe these situations and their moral resolution, it is meant to illustrate more about what morality is about, rather than any event.
Morality is about survival. This doesn't just mean personal survival. That is not a moral issue. This is about survival in the evolutionary sense. In humans, that refers to survival of families, communities, races and humanity. It also refers to genes, though it gets confused by ideaolgies encapsulated in memes.
In wars, individuals die, for something that is not obviously genetically to their benefit. A biologist can view a death in war as the individual promoting their genetic "survival" by
insuring the survival of their relatives / tribe. Some members of the society get killed, often without reproducing, to protect the larger society. War also promotes the belief and value systems of the victor. The same thing is supposed to apply in the case of two siblings. One can promote their "survival" by promoting the survival of the other sibling. According to this theory, what is important is genetic survival more than direct genetic continuity.
A case like that is fairly common in animals. It is not unusual for certain members of the family or pack to take on a primary defensive role to protect the rest of the family. The risk is taken so that the rest of the family group will survive, thereby insuring the survival of the genes of the defender. Inclusive fitness is the term used in biology to refer to this. So, in terms of inclusive fitness, in term of survival, genetically, you are helping yourself if you help those you are more directly related to. Well, while there is significant variation in humans, still the percentage of total genetic variation is very tiny. This relates to the following scenarios.
First though is a list of genetic relatedness in terms of humans. You are most closely related to your parents and siblings. Next would come uncles, aunts, cousins and half siblings. Then would be the clan, then the tribe, the race and then the human race as a whole. While there is a great deal of variation in the human race, there is also great genetic similarity.
Aside from the issue of inclusive fitness in those relationships, there are moral or philosophical issues that relate to survival. If two societies of relatively similar genetic background go to war over philosophical differences, it can lead to one society ending up with great survival advantage (domination of) over the other society. The difference here is based on beliefs, but dictates survival, which is a matter of genetics.
Even in a family, different parts may be more important in terms of survival. There is inherently a competition between parents and children as well as between different children for resources. Also, a parent may sacrifice themselves for their children. In humans and other animals, many times a child may be allowed to die so that the parents may live and have more children at a better time. This is very strategy dependant. For example, many cat species have large numbers of offspring and the parents do not work extremely hard to insure survival of any individual. Some of the offspring will survive even if the majority die. In humans, we have far fewer children and they require a great resource investment, but sometimes they may be sacrificed for survival of the parents or older children that the parents have already put a large investment into. This is a case studied in the Inuit. Living near the Arctic Circle as they do, life is extremely difficult and if a family judges that it does not have adaquate food for the survival of the entire family for the winter, members of the family may be sacrificed. They may be elder members or they may be children, but the hard decision will be made based on the longer term survival of the family.
So the point of this essay, as stated, is not primarily about who lives and who dies or how to make that decision, it is about that that decision might have to be made and it must be made for survival. This applies in an incredible number of places in the human world.
It could be said that in humans if a person chooses not to have children, they have made an immoral decision, because it does not lead to survival in an evolutionary sense. The reality is that, like survival in war, it may be far more complicated than that. As in some other animals, an aunt or uncle may put off having children to help a sibling raise their children. Due to inclusive fitness, they may actually do a great deal to insure their genetic survival and their not having children may then be quite moral. In reality, variations of this is a common circumstance.
That is a rather limited case, but at the same time it illustrates that in society a person may choose a carreer that limits their ability to have children, but they are supporting the survival of a society where those related to themselves can better survive. A military officer or a fireman might be an example of this. Consider a person that is homosexual. They might not be inclined to have children, but they might help their siblings with their family. Our society is so complex and survival is so tough that this is important.
Many people currently and all through history have sacrificed themselves to serve for the betterment of their family or the broader society. Here morality is judged not just at the individual level, but the help given to the community or society helps with the basic survival needs of familys and individuals.
Now consider variations on this strategy that apply to present and future ecology. Wealth is not critical to survival, but can be helpful. Often one member of a family that is financially successful will use their money to help the rest of their siblings raise their children. That is a fine thing, but in the cold calculations of genetic theory, that individual is doing that to increase their genetic survival.
There are two more situations to consider. Remember, moral decisions are easy when survival is easy. It is when survival gets harder that the moral decisions become more difficult.
Consider a model. If we found that the earth was about to be part of a cosmic event, a messy one. What if a decision was made by a group to devote their resources to producing a way for some people to escape to another ecology. This would constitute an example of altruism, but what would it actually mean in terms of genetics and beliefs? First off, what is the genetic and behavioral relationship between the survivors and the ones that stay behind? Most of the
genetics would be identical, except for those small critical differences. The belief speaks for itself. The action would prove the moral decision made for survival.
Consider two people of basically the same race or modern tribe. They are genetically, quite closely related. Call one of them superior to the other. Name them Bester and Fester respectively. There is very little difference between them when examined statistically at the genetic level, but these must be critical differences if you examine the differences between the two individuals. Bester is stronger, faster, healthier, more intelligent and better looking... superior. Bester has all of the traits and potentials of Fester, many in better forms and even some traits that Fester does not have. Fester is completely genetically related
to Bester, but Bester is not completely related to Fester. Bester is not so much different from Fester, but is Fester plus. So if the game is played as genetic survival, Fester could insure his genetic survival by promoting Besters success. Is it an issue of genetic continuity or genetic survival.