Bioethicality

I was introduced to a video today that put forth some of the logic of C. S. Lewis' belief in moral realism, as laid out in his 1954 book Mere Christianity.

I rate it a solid "meh." But I guess that it's like a lot of other apologetics in that it's likely most convincing to those people who are looking for reasons to believe, or to maintain their belief. But the logic is a bit too focused to be a good argument on its own.

Long story short, Mr. Lewis puts forth that some moral principles are objectively correct, and people have an intuitive sense, something like a Sensus Divinitatis for them. As an example, he proposes that being unselfish is one such idea. As it's explained int he blog post linked above:

[Mr. Lewis] says one culture might believe you should be unselfish to your family, another may believe you should be unselfish to your family and your fellow countryman, and another culture may believe that it must be extended to every single person. However, they all agree you should not put yourself first.

Personally, I think that there is something of an is-ought problem here, and a bit of selectivity. After all, one culture may believe that certain things taste good, and another culture believes that other things taste good. I don't believe I've encountered an argument that the fact that they all agree that certain foods taste good is evidence that deliciousness is somehow a fundamental property of the universe.

And what I think is missing here are the roles of biology and society; mainly social learning. Human beings fare remarkably poorly, unless they're Bear Grylls or someone like that, when they are left alone to their own devices. While people may not be very good at understanding which animals they could beat in a one-on-one fight, the overall consensus is that humans don't fare very well, they outrank geese, but that's about it. So a human being who manages to alienate anyone who may otherwise assist them places themselves in difficult position. People need food, clothing and protection from the elements and despite what Don't Starve might have one believe, obtaining them on the fly is a tall order for most people who find themselves needing to do so without significant preparation. People understand this, and so they're aware that dealing with people who might double-cross them at first opportunity could be damaging to their own prospects, and so avoid them.

And one can see the evolutionary advantage to the creation and dissemination of this helpful piece of human culture.

So the problem becomes not the attempt to link this back to something greater, but to explain why it couldn't be something other than this greater thing. Simply noting that all cultures have the concept doesn't help, since there are no non-human cultures, or human cultures where absolute self-sufficiency are the norm, to be compared to. So to the degree that all human cultures need to find a way to cooperate, one would expect cultural rules to foster cooperation would spring up, in the say way that susceptibility of all human beings to toxins would lead to taboos connected to eating certain foods that had proved dangerous; there is no pressing need to fall back on a some metaphysical idea when simple biology will serve just as well.