All morality is practical

This debate could easily have ground down into wrangling about the definition of "morality" and "practical". I'm so glad it didn't. Many thanks to my opponent for allowing the discussion to stay open, even if it has meant that we are using those words in different ways. It's more interesting like that.Good laws are a result of moralityCon argues that morality isn't effective enough to be practical. He says, "We must recognize that morality cannot make a sound, fair and safer society. Therefore, we must establish a law." However, in the same way that cozy, feathered nests are a result of birds' instinct to protect their eggs, laws are a result of the human moral instinct. In summary:1. Often, when people talk of morality, they think mainly about an individual's control over her own behavior. But is more than that, of course. It also involves an unceasing interest in the moral behavior of other people. In the same way as a mother is constantly fretting about her babies, or a domestic cat obsesses about the mouse under the fridge, our moral instinct drives us to be constantly alert, constantly worried about others' conformity to moral standards.Take this debate, for example. My opponent is in Japan; I am in Australia. Neither one of us is in a position to restrict executive pay in the US, nor are we financially affected by the situation. Nevertheless, it disturbs us. We can rationalize our concern, of course. The appalling state of public education in the US! The lack of universal health care! It doesn't matter that the suffering poor are no more than a blurry, moral backdrop and that we can't articulate the link to executive pay exactly. The important thing is our anger at those immoral, grabby, rich executives. This is our moral instinct in action. 2. The moral instinct is more powerful in smaller societies. Con has argued that "traditional" African societies are a sort of pure, moral utopia, unsullied by the evil of globalization and Western "progress". No evidence for this. Sounds very like romantic racism which, although better than the violent, genocidal kind (in my opinion) is still distracting.I agree with Con's point about moral strength in smaller discrete societies. We have all felt the sort of moral freedom that comes when we're in a foreign country where nobody knows us. We have all felt stifled and morally oppressed when in a society where too many people know us. The moral instinct developed during a history of small groups (1).Nowadays, our species has progressed so that we live in societies of millions of people. We can't count on knowing and sizing up every other person in the society. We need other structures in place, and the sophistication of our laws and our methods of monitoring each other have progressed accordingly.3. The unceasing, ubiquitous moral instinct has, over generations, driven people to create all kinds of laws. One example is the co-determination laws in Germany that Con provided (2). Another is the freedom of speech and religion laws in the US. The moral instinct has found expression through legislation. How practical morality is!Morality and the individualIn round 2, I said that belief in God or morality-linked self-esteem are mechanisms of morality. However now, after brooding on it, I think of them, rather, as justifications for a difficult-to-explain compulsion. If we define ourselves (and we do) as discrete units, then our instinct to behave morally even when unobserved is irrational. God and our pride in our moral selves is rationalizing it. It's been consistently observed in psychology that our behavior drives our attitudes, not the other way around (3). This is another example of it.Morality is universal Morality has a small radius in that we care most about and are most moral towards people we know, who are near us and who we identify as being like ourselves. However, the moral instinct is universal. It's true that some legislative structures are superior to others, and that some societies are living under greater resource pressure than others, and some societies are more stable than others. But to claim, as Con does, that certain nationalities or groups have more morality than others is very much a subjective assessment. Humans are not the only primates to feature moral behavior. It's an instinct that we all possess but which, like language, finds expression in a wide variety of ways.Morality is practicalParents should be responsible for their children. We shouldn't hurt other people. We should take care of the sick. We should share resources and help each other. We should keep our word and honor our agreements. These are our moral instincts. They have helped us form strong societies and therefore survive in a competitive, dangerous world. They have found expression in legislation. Even though the type of societies we live in nowadays are very different from societies of the past, our moral instinct is still stong. It is essential to our species because it is so, so practical.(1) "Villages of 100 or more people were established as head-quarters, from which people radiated on hunting and collecting trips." http://www.des.ucdavis.edu...(2) http://www.boeckler.de...(3) http://books.google.com.au...