I do not think you are entirely correct on this. Chimps do not have a formal language to teach as in a formal human system but they do carry and keep toolkits for collecting honey. They demonstrate behavior to their offspring which are not inborn behaviors. They have a complex political system. They transmit cultural behavior which has also been seen in many different primates. So when you say do they actively teach in a way they demonstrate skills but without a verbal language. Clearly not as effective as humans but still effective enough to transmit learned behavior. Again there is a difference in degree but not in kind.
I don't see where we're in much disagreement here.
I think they all are, as that is really what morality is about at bottom.
Immoral behaviour is always coupled with negative consequences for others, one way or the other. That is in fact what makes the acts immoral.
The ONLY "immoral" acts that I know of that have NO (real) consequences (negative OR positive), or those acts that are condemned through religious appeals to perceived authority. Like masturbation supposedly being "evil". Or at least: I can't think of any such acts of which the supposed "evil" or "immoral" aspect does NOT have religious underpinnings.
Can you give me an example of an act that we might both agree on to be immoral, but which has no real detectable consequences and for which the reasoning of the evaluation in moral terms does NOT have religious underpinnings?
Apparently we're both more consequentialist than deontological, but many laws and religious injunctions are not. Many are based on religious writings, tradition or "ickyness" with no clear social function.
Laws don't necessarily reflect morals though.
Having said that, not really sure what you mean here exactly.
There's frequently a disconnect between the effect of an act and its legal status. Some illegal things have no clear purpose. Some illegal things are not generally regarded as immoral acts, and many acts I'd consider immoral are legal.
Again not sure what you mean here. Status quo of what? Hierarchical in what way?
Laws tend to support accepted attitudes and customs. People tend to fear disorder, and are often uncomfortable with change. People are most comfortable with familiarity and predictability. Laws and social customs tend to reflect this status quo.
Laws are made by aristocrats and owners, to support the interests of aristocrats and owners -- to the detriment of the people in general. They tend to support a social and economic hierarchy.
How do you explain the abolishment of slavery, while it hasn't been seen as a real problem for millenia?
It persisted as long as it was necessary. When it became economically feasible to replace it with less harsh forms of exploitation, the voices of the moralists were heard. Even so, in the US abolition had to be
imposed on large sections of the country by the more urban, industrialized, seasonal North.
As I said. Laws reflect the status quo and that which benefits the powerful.
How do you explain the current breakdown of homophobia and the pretty much global realization (albeit slowly) that discriminating people based on sexual orientation is not okay?
Urbanization, increasing secularism and better communications and media coverage.
How do you explain animal rights?
Not sure what sort of explanation you're looking for, here. As with slavery, when the profit in it and social desire to exploit animals diminishes, the voices of their advocates will increasingly be heard.
All these things are fairly recent moral developments.
It's not like any gods hav send extra moral instructions the past 300 years or whatever...
Clearly we figured out on our own that what was previously considerd a-okay, is now recognised as being evil.
Yes, I do believe respect for basic rights and equal moral consideration is increasing. When exploitation is profitable to those in power, it persists despite clear religious injunctions and moral arguments against it. The American South defended slavery as religiously mandated, after all, and considered the northern opponents "damned Yankees" for trying to upset the divine order of things. Again, we're wonderful rationalizers.
You mentioned animal rights. There are clear arguments against animal cruelty and exploitation today, but those who benefit from such exploitation argue vociferously against it -- slaver vs abolitionist redux.
So, what changed? Religion didn't change.... it's the same religions people have been following for more then 1500 years, 2000 years, in some cases even 3000 years.
The religious
texts didn't change, but interpretations always change to reflect current ideas of propriety, as do the passages cherry-picked to support this status quo.
Are they forced to kill or are they "led to believe that killing is acceptable?" I don't think you can assume it's the latter.
Sometimes the former, almost always the latter. I don't think our natural compunction against extra-tribal killing is very strong. It's easily overridden by convention.
Consider the strong nationalism and support for the military by Christian fundamentalists, whom you'd think would be cosmopolitan, anti-military pacifists, if they were actually heeding the gospels.
And yet, these social groups have abolished slavery, are learning to treat women with equality, and have learned to treat each other better. How did they know they should do that?
Most didn't, till the voices of the moral minority were finally heard; till the economic benefit of this discrimination lessened. Even so, these were contentious issues, particularly in rural, conservative, traditionalist regions.
We are born with a conscience. Social scientists are researching it as the product of intuition. Religious training and "socialization" have their influence on behavior but not on moral intuition which, at its most basic, warns us not to intentionally cause harm to others.
Yet look how weak and easily overridden this inborn conscience is. I don't see masses of people condemning the military or clamoring for animal rights; I don't see a massive movement to welcome the brown 'strangers among us' from South of the border. Quite the opposite, in many cases.
Your worldview is pessimistic. I authored a thread a while back that argues for a more optimistic view.
Perhaps so, but I'm aiming for realistic, not optimistic. I think human history, anthropology and psychology will back me up.
