Humans - musing on morality and social constructs

I read an interesting thing online, which has led me to a philosophical line of thought, which then led me to thinking that I should write my ideas down and remembering that I have a blog. :)

What I read was a condemnation of ideals as social constructs and of moral relativism in general. While it didn't say so, at the core of the argument was a call for Universal Morality. 

I would argue that the idea of Universal Morality presupposes that the Universe gives a damn about morality. I don't think it does. The universe cares about physics and what is moral to the wolf is immoral to the sheep. 

Humans are neither wolves nor sheep. We are humans. 

So, if we can't talk about universal morality, can we talk about human morality and arrive at any meaningful absolutes?

Firstly, I think "absolute" is the wrong goal. By common usage and understanding it again harkens back to this idea of Universality and, as I said, the universe does not care about morality. Still, I think we can examine the human experience and explore whether or not there are behaviors and ideals that seem to be foundational to humans. 

So, what is it to be foundationally human?

Humans are primates. With a few exceptions, we are a social species. We naturally form what I'll call tribal groups. We tend to be hierarchical, but not absolutely so. Individuals tend to lead, but the same individual in all circumstances. We tend to be cooperative, at least within our tribe, sharing tasks with the goals of supporting and preserving the tribe and ourselves. We form strong emotional bonds, usually along the lines of shared experiences, shared work, sexual play and childbearing. Those emotional bonds can be so strong as to override an individual's drive for self-preservation, leading humans to sometimes put the needs of others, or of the group, over their own. At other times, our individual desires and impulses of self-preservation override those emotional bonds.

In short, humans are a mess of contradictory impulses. We are driven by both self-interest and the needs of the group. 

Most human ethical frameworks focus on the group. We form social contracts, collective agreements that most often place the needs to the group above our own self-interest, usually in the belief that the individual self-interest is best served by a strong, stable society. At the same time, many social contracts, especially in our modern cultures, also support the importance of the individual, and their needs, against the primacy of society's needs, usually in the belief that society is best served by strong, stable individuals.

Our self-interest is at odds with our social need... except that our social need is part of our self-interest. An individual is best served by a strong, stable society and a society is best served by strong, stable individuals! 

Again, humans are a mess of contradictory impulses. 

This is why I both love and hate humans. :)

So, can we arrive at absolute human morality? Probably not. At least not a simple one. After all, we've been trying for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years and we haven't worked it out yet. 

If we can get close, I think it falls in the need to find a balance between selflessness and self-interest, between society and individual, and ultimately to embrace the idea that humans are messy, confusing, horrible, wonderful, fascinating creatures. 

Onward