An objective definition of MORALITY

[sickles]

Hello all. Im sure this group has its own fair share of moral nihilists. How goes it? Anyhow, I have a definition of morality that I have come up with. The idea is to avoid almost if not all of the pitfalls one comes across when claiming an objective moral imperative. This includes, but is not limited to; Hume's Is-ought problem, J.L. Mackie's claim there cannot be an objective morality, Is this not utilitarianism?, and a priori problems, and so on. I am to sidestep these. Most of these objections either are mostly against Divine Command Theory, or a problem of subjectivity and value. Here is my definition (this is the spirit of the new field thats called "Experimental Philosophy")

Morality is defined as sets of evolutionarily stable behaviors or strategies that ease the difficulty of socially complex animals living together in groups.

I say I avoid Hume's guillotine by not proscribing an "ought". The definition does not say whether one should or should not be moral. Nor does it claim that all humans are moral. Nor does it say what one should do with immoral people. The only ought that *might* be implied is that you "ought not go extinct". But that is really stretching it, from my estimation. I say I counter Mackie's claim by asserting that this definition is true , whether there is an observer or not. It has truth value before someone discovers the definition or not. Mackie is mainly postured against Divine Command Theory. I hope you see where I would go with this. I say I counter the accusation that this is utilitarianism, because it is not we who judge what is actually necessarily easier and what is not. It either meets the definition , or it doesn't. See my objection to Mackie, above. I hope why I would object to the assertion of an a priori problem would be obvious by this point. What do you think , ladies and gents? Have I struck gold, or is there a huge problem that I am not realizing? Please, anyone who responds and myself must assume the principle of mutual fallibility. I look forward to your responses.

[Hatuey]

Hello all. Im sure this group has its own fair share of moral nihilists. How goes it? ... I look forward to your responses.

Proper morality is defined individually, as are all ideas held resolutely.

I would define "good" as that which I would wish for other to do towards me and "bad" as that which I would NOT want others to do towards me. If an instance arises where past experiences will not cause one's reasoning to definitively decide what is or is not "good/bad," then one should attempt to take the path which appears to cause the least amount of harm overall/throughout the system.

[sickles]

[Replying to post 230 by Excubis]

Why would you assume that survival pressures no longer apply today? Do vaccines and proper nutrition mean that survival is no longer relevant? Is it really possible to ever escape this context at our current technology level or any one that is probable in the near future?

"Actually I should state there could be no reason for humans to fight for survival. Unlike other social animals such as primates, they fight for resources for survival not over ideologies"

What if we said "memes" instead of "ideologies" ? And we allow for genes being memes as well. Then would one be a genetic moral meme and the other be a culutural (maybe) moral meme? Wouldnt process of meme success/selection be the same, regardless? We can keep it to ancient humans for simplicities sake when comparing to animals. Why would you assume the hunter gatherers are mimicking the behaviors of social animals around them? What about human tribes that live where there are few or no social animals to model themselves after, like new zealand (maybe?)

" I would consider this the fundamental difference between humans and primates when talking about morality of the two."

Im not sure I understand your distinction very clearly.

I would also like to add that i think survival always applies. Natural selection is not always about a war for resources. Natural selection is about who didnt die. Its really as simple as that, I think. So , mankind , as long as he is mortal, cannot evade a natural selection context.

[sickles]

[Replying to post 231 by Hatuey]

So you are asserting that there is no standard of morality whatsoever? Or is it that it only appears to be standards because everyone defines "good" and "bad" similarly to yourself?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 231 by Hatuey]

So you are asserting that there is no standard of morality whatsoever? Or is it that it only appears to be standards because everyone defines "good" and "bad" similarly to yourself?

Context is everything. Because humans share the context of human living, and we also share the context of societal engagement, we define morality similarly much of the time.

Morality for the individual is defined by the individual (as his mind is informed by history's and society's conclusions). Society defined morality for itself, also, and so pressures the individual to "agree" most of the time.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 232 by sickles]

I do not think that survival no longer applies I in fact think they apply too much but more by choice than necessity. Absolutely memes is far better descriptor but will say we "humans" have a choice to be driven by the biological or choose another paradigm. Now sorry for using mimicking this I do not see as intentional but a biological, or instinctua found in all social primates.

Now when I stated " I would consider this the fundamental difference between humans and primates when talking about morality of the two." I was speaking on group division. In humans, although group divided by ethnicity, ideals, ect.. we still live, and work together, this is very rare in all wild social animals except "herds" who come together during time of migration, mating, and birthing. Yet since we were discussing primates, this behavior is very rare and only documented cases are of a few individuals amalgamating into another group, never entire groups combining. This is choice driven and were our social memes differ from other animals.

Well natural selection is in my view not a social paradigm, it was not applied as such by Darwin and I feel it has no place in defining morality. This mechanism is about fight for resources this is a biological and evolutionary imperative, if an organism cannot adequately fight for resources it will not survive. Now natural selection I will say is what gave rise to the "social" being since this cooperative state of organism allows it to compete with others better. Now we as the cooperative organisms choose what our accepted memes are and we use to compete with other organisms for survival not each other unless we choose too.

Now as for vaccines and medicine to me that is different fight for survival, since it is only very recently we realized this was a biological fight due to natural selection. This is a entire species fight not individuals against each other and therefore does not apply to the social. We choose for it to be prevalent but once again we can choose. Difference is as a cooperative social organism we have collectively figured out many things and it has helped the far majority of all humans. We are a cooperative species when in relation to each other. This is where I base where to define my morality based on cooperation. Now you can disagree yet all societies anywhere would not exists if we were not in fact cooperative with each other.

[sickles]

[Replying to post 99 by Jashwell]

I thought about what you said about diversity. It is a problematic concept to put into words. What is the biological value of diversity and by what mechanisms is it valuable? Well, all complexity has "Goldilocks" conditions. Humans, for example, have conditions which must be present if we are to be present. Temperatures just so, atmospheric pressure just so, the weak atomic force just so. Each hidden and known parameter of reality must exist within a given range for a human being to exist. This is the Goldilocks range of humans. There is a goldilocks range for everything from planets to plants to an internal combustion engine. All complexity should have goldilocks conditions.

Diversity has biological value because it increases the Goldilocks range of both the species, but to the whole living community in its part. The mechanism by which this is done is by genetic variation. Genetic variation brought to us by various causes such as replication mistakes or selective breeding brings us diversity, which has incredible biological value because it increases the Goldilocks range of the species, which is a primary Natural selection pressure. Environmental parameters falling outside a species goldilocks range is likely to be the primary cause of all species extinction on earth. What do you think of this?

[sickles]

[Replying to post 235 by Excubis]

"Now sorry for using mimicking this I do not see as intentional but a biological, or instinctua found in all social primates. "

I dont know if this is a fair thing to say. I think you would be very hard pressed to empirically give us a method to determine if any give human being is acting intentionally, biologically, or instinctively. There are empirical cognitive tests being performed now that put the very concept of free will in danger. Im not sure how you can speak with such certainty about ourselves, much less other primates.

"this is very rare in all wild social animals except "herds" who come together during time of migration, mating, and birthing."

Firstly, I would ask you to justify this assertion. But putting a pin in that, many species on earth from life partners and are monogomous. Would not a morality between spouses be expected to be present in each species?


"Yet since we were discussing primates, this behavior is very rare and only documented cases are of a few individuals amalgamating into another group, never entire groups combining. This is choice driven and were our social memes differ from other animals. "

You must not be familiar with bonobos (source: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/featur ... nobo-bliss)
"The contrast with their fellow species is striking. Most observed chimp killings take place during territorial disputes, whereas bonobos engage in sex at their boundaries. They can be unfriendly to neighbors, but soon after a confrontation has begun, females have been seen rushing to the other side to copulate with males or mount other females. Since it is hard to have sex and wage war at the same time, the scene rapidly turns into socializing. It ends with adults from different groups grooming each other while their children play. These reports go back to 1990, and come mainly from Takayoshi Kano of Kyoto University, the Japanese scientist who worked the longest with wild bonobos. Writing Bonobo, I interviewed field researchers, such as Kano and Gottfried Hohmann, a primatologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. When I asked the latter how his bonobos react to other groups, Hohmann replied, “It starts out very tense, with shouting and chasing, but then they settle down and there is female-female and male-female sex between members of the two communities. Grooming may occur, but remains tense and nervous.� This is not exactly the stuff associated with killer apes, although Hohmann did add that communities do not always mingle and that males from different groups don’t groom each other."

"Well natural selection is in my view not a social paradigm, it was not applied as such by Darwin and I feel it has no place in defining morality"

Wouldnt Natural Selection apply to everything? By any action, will most not do it if it is not safe? If it is not safe, is it not saying that natural selection may apply to strongly in this case? Would Natural Selection not apply to all contexts for a biological entity , including moral ones or moral considerations? Im not trying to be overbearing. I really like talking about this stuff.

"if an organism cannot adequately fight for resources it will not survive"

This is true. The acquisition of resources is necessary for survival. However, there are other necessities of survival, and placing extra onus on one does not give us license to ignore the others.

""social" being since this cooperative state of organism allows it to compete with others better"

Compete with other what?

" Now we as the cooperative organisms choose what our accepted memes are "

Do you think we choose all of them? Do you think that we have a right to choose our own? What about wisdom? Are we wise enough to choose all our own memes?

"his is a entire species fight not individuals against each other and therefore does not apply to the social."

It may not be a social situation, but it still remains true as ever that we are all socially complex animals, absent a group or no.

"Difference is as a cooperative social organism we have collectively figured out many things and it has helped the far majority of all humans."

Difference, disagreement, or diversity? Which do you mean?

"We are a cooperative species when in relation to each other"

We are biologically a cooperative species even when alone.

"Now you can disagree yet all societies anywhere would not exists if we were not in fact cooperative with each other."

I would agree. I also would voice my opinion that it seems to me a good bit of the picture is missing with your concept. It sounds convincing in some logical ways. Im not sure it would survive the intense philosophical scrutiny required to convince posterity to choose this brand of morality , yet. I mean no offense. I mean to be constructive.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 235 by Excubis]

"Now sorry for using mimicking this I do not see as intentional but a biological, or instinctua found in all social primates. "

I dont know if this is a fair thing to say. I think you would be very hard pressed to empirically give us a method to determine if any give human being is acting intentionally, biologically, or instinctively. There are empirical cognitive tests being performed now that put the very concept of free will in danger. Im not sure how you can speak with such certainty about ourselves, much less other primates.

"this is very rare in all wild social animals except "herds" who come together during time of migration, mating, and birthing."

Firstly, I would ask you to justify this assertion. But putting a pin in that, many species on earth from life partners and are monogomous. Would not a morality between spouses be expected to be present in each species?


"Yet since we were discussing primates, this behavior is very rare and only documented cases are of a few individuals amalgamating into another group, never entire groups combining. This is choice driven and were our social memes differ from other animals. "

You must not be familiar with bonobos (source: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/featur ... nobo-bliss)
"The contrast with their fellow species is striking. Most observed chimp killings take place during territorial disputes, whereas bonobos engage in sex at their boundaries. They can be unfriendly to neighbors, but soon after a confrontation has begun, females have been seen rushing to the other side to copulate with males or mount other females. Since it is hard to have sex and wage war at the same time, the scene rapidly turns into socializing. It ends with adults from different groups grooming each other while their children play. These reports go back to 1990, and come mainly from Takayoshi Kano of Kyoto University, the Japanese scientist who worked the longest with wild bonobos. Writing Bonobo, I interviewed field researchers, such as Kano and Gottfried Hohmann, a primatologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. When I asked the latter how his bonobos react to other groups, Hohmann replied, “It starts out very tense, with shouting and chasing, but then they settle down and there is female-female and male-female sex between members of the two communities. Grooming may occur, but remains tense and nervous.� This is not exactly the stuff associated with killer apes, although Hohmann did add that communities do not always mingle and that males from different groups don’t groom each other."

"Well natural selection is in my view not a social paradigm, it was not applied as such by Darwin and I feel it has no place in defining morality"

Wouldnt Natural Selection apply to everything? By any action, will most not do it if it is not safe? If it is not safe, is it not saying that natural selection may apply to strongly in this case? Would Natural Selection not apply to all contexts for a biological entity , including moral ones or moral considerations? Im not trying to be overbearing. I really like talking about this stuff.

"if an organism cannot adequately fight for resources it will not survive"

This is true. The acquisition of resources is necessary for survival. However, there are other necessities of survival, and placing extra onus on one does not give us license to ignore the others.

""social" being since this cooperative state of organism allows it to compete with others better"

Compete with other what?

" Now we as the cooperative organisms choose what our accepted memes are "

Do you think we choose all of them? Do you think that we have a right to choose our own? What about wisdom? Are we wise enough to choose all our own memes?

"his is a entire species fight not individuals against each other and therefore does not apply to the social."

It may not be a social situation, but it still remains true as ever that we are all socially complex animals, absent a group or no.

"Difference is as a cooperative social organism we have collectively figured out many things and it has helped the far majority of all humans."

Difference, disagreement, or diversity? Which do you mean?

"We are a cooperative species when in relation to each other"

We are biologically a cooperative species even when alone.

"Now you can disagree yet all societies anywhere would not exists if we were not in fact cooperative with each other."

I would agree. I also would voice my opinion that it seems to me a good bit of the picture is missing with your concept. It sounds convincing in some logical ways. Im not sure it would survive the intense philosophical scrutiny required to convince posterity to choose this brand of morality , yet. I mean no offense. I mean to be constructive.

I quoted entirety of because I think context has been misconstrued.

"I dont know if this is a fair thing to say. I think you would be very hard pressed to empirically give us a method to determine if any give human being is acting intentionally, biologically, or instinctively. There are empirical cognitive tests being performed now that put the very concept of free will in danger. Im not sure how you can speak with such certainty about ourselves, much less other primates."

I am not speaking of empirically since far majority of the social science is not empirical since a control is lacking. The development of social meme's and whether they are instinctual ect.. lacks and are quasi-experiments. I am not against this since I use same experiment design within my own theories. Yet until we observe a development of another species such as ourselves we lack a control and therefore data is only empirical by comparison to already known behaviors not a control. I have received much criticism for this view but I accept the majority of theories of behavior are not by definition empirical in much of the social sciences.

I do agree that a large part of behavior is in fact not free will, but yet again I do not accept the philosophy of free will is unique to humans. Free will implies an outside will is thrust upon an organism, and then has been given the choice to abide by. I do not see instinct as following another will but a basis of genetic memory by previous learned survival techniques.

I do in know about bonobos , although their interaction are more similar to that of humans and group interactions are more complex there still is a divide. Do they meet and then in turn live in the same exact spot, do they get together and work as one to support both groups? Humans do, we live in same spot and work together to support each other, our group division is based on generally a culture biases, yet this is disregarded and we come together when needed.

Natural selection does not apply to living in a technological civilization since we no longer abide by such for survival. All subsequent subsets of civilization such as economics is a human created paradigm and we attempt to apply natural selection to such things yet this paradigm is artificial not natural. Since we now have the capability to prevent and cure disease, grow and raise our food sources, and design and build long terms shelters through use of the materials in the natural world, we no longer live naturally so in my opinion natural selection drove us to this state but does not blanket our existence any longer.

I have much I would like to say all all points but it is this statement I will continue from.

"It sounds convincing in some logical ways. Im not sure it would survive the intense philosophical scrutiny required to convince posterity to choose this brand of morality , yet. I mean no offense. I mean to be constructive."

I am not offended yet one must first question the reasoning of the logic for the philosophy. I will admit one certainty I have encountered and that is debating with a philosopher although I love doing so since philosophers question everything and by large keep things objective. A good philosopher's logic is close to poetic when verbalized and hard to counter if not a philosopher themselves. I also do not want to brand a morality, to me this is like institutionalizing morality, creating a non changing moral code is what I feel is the problem. To me there should not be a definitive moral code that is upheld yet basics I see as innate in all social beings.

All behavior if not damaging of a person physically or property directly or indirectly and does not oppress another who in turn does not damage property or physically nor oppress others directly or indirectly is my basis for morality.

This is not new nor is it revolutionary but it's roots can be found not in civilization but hunter gather societies. This is why I have hypothesized the time hunter gathers cultures existed above that of civilized society. In civilized society there has by large been a oppressed people either by religion, birth rights, or wealth. I have evidentiary support and will post once legally allowed to. I am not attempting a philosophical idea of morality, my attempt and subsequent studies are to indicate a base for mortality and the ethics of this base is a philosophical endeavour.

Once again this is not empirical it is only a hypothesis as current, yet my goal with my book is to take morality out of pure logical thought and create the idea it is a tangible aspect of being social and our success as a society or longevity will coincide to an acceptance of this base moral behavior which we can than use to create ethics from. I understand the complexity of our current societies and where people derive their morality from, but see this as a social divide of morality based on subjective views due to culture, religion ect..

I am also fully aware that this maybe utterly disregarded which is okay as long as it drives a discussion on acceptable ethics derived from a base of morality. Many do not accept the idea of a basis for morality but I disagree without a base or no ethics can be brought fourth. There is much confusion about morality and ethics, I am not indicating you but the general populace by large.

[sickles]

[Replying to post 238 by Excubis]

"I am not speaking of empirically since far majority of the social science is not empirical since a control is lacking. "

I dont know if this is true. We can study the phenomenology of why people make the moral decisions they do and study this stastically to establish a baseline. Additionally (and I know you resist this somewhat), a baseline can be distinguished by referencing other great apes. If not chimps and bonobos, then neanderthal or hiedelberghensis. Im not sure at which point you want to put the "human" line down between our hominid ancestors. I might ask you to justify your line to begin with.

You attempt to do so by pointing out different moral strategies we pursue when compared to those other great apes. However, this is just another strategy. Superiority cannot be claimed except in our own case. Our ways are not superior for a chimp or an orangutan. To claim superiority in this way is like the peacock claiming superiority over the bird of paradise because its feathers are longer. Poppycock.

20th century social sciences are experiencing a paradigm shift through study of natural selection.

"I accept the majority of theories of behavior are not by definition empirical in much of the social sciences. "

That is what I am attempting with my moral theory, which is similar to yours.

"I do agree that a large part of behavior is in fact not free will, but yet again I do not accept the philosophy of free will is unique to humans. Free will implies an outside will is thrust upon an organism, and then has been given the choice to abide by. I do not see instinct as following another will but a basis of genetic memory by previous learned survival techniques. "

I do not like your definition of free will then. Free will implies choice, not an outside will. You seem to claim that at no point could a lion choose to stop being a lion ,and yet there are historical accounts that show this can easily happen. Animals are guided by instinct, i believe. But they also must choose to do something or nothing at any given moment. Follow the instinct or dont. This is a choice in higher cognition animals. You seem to look around at a world of good choice makers and attribute this to automation. Like little robots running around with programming. But you cant program for an unknowable future. I think this is overly reductionist. It is perfectly reasonable for you to conclude that if all you see is a world in which both poor decision makers and genes that make poor decision makers are scarce because of the poor decisions they make and living creatures that currently make mostly good decisions are mostly present because of the succesfull results they accidentally brought, that things sorted them selves out by success in this way. At no point is automation of good decisions a good biological idea because natural selection pressures, or in other words that context which determines what idea is good or bad, is constantly in flux.

"Humans do, we live in same spot and work together to support each other, our group division is based on generally a culture biases, yet this is disregarded and we come together when needed."

May I rephrase for demonstration purposes? "Peacocks do, we have longer feathers with very bright shades of blue. Our feather length is based generally on female selection biases, yet we still manage to have the longest feathers at the end of the day"

What do you think of my reinterpretation? Would it then be fair for the peacock to say he is superior to the bird of paradise because his feathers are longer or that there is some significant difference between them as avians?

"Natural selection does not apply to living in a technological civilization since we no longer abide by such for survival."

Oh, so we are immortal then? I am not sure yet how you are saying that natural selection no longer applies. Are you trying to say it no longer applies in the same way? Blankets our existence? If we still are mortal and we still breed, then natural selection always applies? i am confused.


"I am not offended yet one must first question the reasoning of the logic for the philosophy."

In my opinion, absolute truths are unnecessary. Only value is necessary. Though truths may still exist. Kinds of value are "instrumental value" "intrinsic value" . A definition , for example, is useful for an animal possessing traits such as myself. Such definitions are not useful for turtles. So, the definition does not have "intrinsic value" or objective value, as the turtle has no value of such things. But , definitions can and ought to be used because the instrumental value of the definition does logical "work" and provides shortcuts in reasoning and logic.

"To me there should not be a definitive moral code that is upheld yet basics I see as innate in all social beings. "

yes , I agree, there is no one right way to to live. However, if one looks at it biologically, it would appear that all socially complex animals must necessarily have a moral system in order to avoid extinction. Those socially complex animals that dont go or have gone extinct. So, it is not necessary for all animals to have the same code. What is being said is that they must all have one of their own. Obviously what works for a wolf pack doesnt work for a dolphin pod and vice versa.

"All behavior if not damaging of a person physically or property directly or indirectly and does not oppress another who in turn does not damage property or physically nor oppress others directly or indirectly is my basis for morality"

What about tribal "erratic retaliator" strategies? Tribal "Warfare" that happens naturally, both for humans and for chimps and other primates?

"This is why I have hypothesized the time hunter gathers cultures existed above that of civilized society."

If we followed your logic, wouldnt this mean that those untouched hunter gatherers would have been the most "moral" people on the planet, according to you? Much more moral than a jesus or ghandi or anyone else you could name that lived since the agricultural revolution? If not, why not?

"n civilized society there has by large been a oppressed people either by religion, birth rights, or wealth. I have evidentiary support and will post once legally allowed to."

sounds like you have a problem with civilization , maybe not as much with ethics?


"the ethics of this base is a philosophical endeavor. "

Logic is the language of philosophy.

If your morality is true, then a philosopher will not be able to criticize it much. If it is just something you think is a good idea, then maybe it is. But that isnt exactly what you are claiming.

"see this as a social divide of morality based on subjective views due to culture, religion ect.."

How have you precluded the possibility of a highest common denominator between the cultures as having explanatory power about human morality?

[Excubis]

[Replying to sickles]

"We can study the phenomenology of why people make the moral decisions they do and study this stastically to establish a baseline."

Agreed yet still many experiment designs in some of the social sciences lack the long term statistics to establish small enough margin of error for empirical data to be derived since control has not been fully established. I am not saying all and accept work done by Sue Savage Rumbaugh and Kanzi the bonobo as valid.

" Our ways are not superior for a chimp or an orangutan. To claim superiority in this way is like the peacock claiming superiority over the bird of paradise because its feathers are longer. Poppycock."

I am not claiming superiority but complexity, the two are not the same although often taken as such.

"20th century social sciences are experiencing a paradigm shift through study of natural selection."

Agree, entirely. Yet our complexity of derived behaviors based on biases of natural selection do change so long as survival of the organism is threatened. Due to the complexity of the homo lines survival strategies we homo sapiens have compiled such complex strategies that in reference to a relative current set of frames are successful compared to many other organisms but not all. Yet in a statistical analysis of long term existence(longevity) human complexity does not have the same relevance. One must also consider the lack of evidence of complex ingenuity to manipulate surroundings on the scale humans have achieved, yet still consider the lack of long term statistics for comparison.

We now due to complexity humans have the ability to trigger a change in behavior by reasoning although I agree logical reasoning is an adaptive survival strategy at it's base and was driven by mechanism of natural selection. This is becoming evident in a long term statistical analysis and therefore is moving to empirical and is already considered so by many in field. So I agree with you assertion yet since complexity has risen in our social interactions and therefore behaviors and morality are due to complexity became it's own specific construct which was trigger by natural selection. This is a hypothesis only and for a control to be established a relevant point due to evidence of this phenomena(complexity of behaviors chosen by reasoning) and also have a clear and accepted definition of points(indicators) of reasoning.

My hypo. on instinct is it is an expression of lack of diversity or complexity of survival strategies. When an organism choices for survival as a reactionary behavior are limited we indicate these limited behaviors as instinct. Lack of something does not indicate a inferiority. Each subsequent behavior derived from becomes it's own established mechanism now beyond the initial trigger over time and rise of complexity.

"Oh, so we are immortal then? I am not sure yet how you are saying that natural selection no longer applies. Are you trying to say it no longer applies in the same way? Blankets our existence? If we still are mortal and we still breed, then natural selection always applies? i am confused. "

Okay the initial mechanism(trigger) for survival natural selection is relevant for subsequent social morality to occur but at one point moral behaviors became driven by social reasoning . One then must define indicators of social reasoning.

"In my opinion, absolute truths are unnecessary. Only value is necessary. Though truths may still exist. Kinds of value are "instrumental value" "intrinsic value" ."

I agree absolute truths in philosophy are unnecessary yet the language philosophy has two dialects of logic formal and traditional and the subsequent deductive reasoning for the logic to have value. Morality drives ethical means and therefore is a instrumental value by creation of intrinsic value, I hypothesis a intrinsic value is produced and becomes instrumental just as natural selection employed on biodiversity and subsequent development of specie genus. Same should apply to morality although a common ancestor is shared a new genus of morality arises.

'What about tribal "erratic retaliator" strategies? Tribal "Warfare" that happens naturally, both for humans and for chimps and other primates?"

I am not applying group divided interactions since this meme of competition itself has changed but not the morals within community(group). Since we now live in a cross culture habitation the genus of morality has changed yet base social morality with in community are still valid.

"If we followed your logic, wouldnt this mean that those untouched hunter gatherers would have been the most "moral" people on the planet, according to you? Much more moral than a jesus or ghandi or anyone else you could name that lived since the agricultural revolution? If not, why not? "

According to their genus of morality, since group divide occurs in habitation for that genus yes. The fight of oppression occurs due to civilized society using hierarchical structure for authority, and it is this social divide of the hierarchical structure since the authority in a hierarchy tends to lead to a consolation of mechanism of authority(religion, literacy, wealth) to maintain authority.

I know as per yet the adaptation of genus from biology is not used although there are talks of such no agreed indicators of genus have been agreed.

"sounds like you have a problem with civilization , maybe not as much with ethics?"

I can see how that is taken since my personal bias prefers to live a lifestyle of a rural habitation, and express some things from this subjective lifestyle choice. Yet to characterize my endeavour as such I would disagree. I want a longevity to occur in our civilized world.

"If your morality is true, then a philosopher will not be able to criticize it much. If it is just something you think is a good idea, then maybe it is. But that isnt exactly what you are claiming."

I do not agree depends on philosopher points of logic and whether a reasonable deductive value can be expressed. If one takes it as a victory of logic to criticize it is not the deduction after the initial criticism and subsequent reasoning provides evidence of value, then the criticism is merely a test to establish logic as valid or invalid.