All morality is practical

Con said: "I do not support Pro`s main argument that moral instinct has evolved in humans."Not only are the moral instincts of empathy, reciprocity and fairness ubiquitous in the human species, they have also been shown over and over throughout the primate order (1-3), which is a clear indication that morality has an instinctive basis.Con points to wealth inequality and crime as proof that the moral instinct does not exist. However, as I said in the previous round, morality is an in-group mechanism, which means that it works for groups to protect themselves in preference to outsiders. I also explained that morality is in constant conflict with, and regularly loses out to self-interest. The existence of crimes does not disprove morality. Indeed, the fact that we recognize them as crimes is evidence of our judgmental, moral perspective. Finally, like language and sexual instinct, morality takes time to develop. Children are still learning these behaviors which is why childhood bullying can seem more random and extreme than the behavior we expect from adults.Con said: "We must recognize that some people have moral restraint but others do not."This is true. In the same way that people have language disorders (4) or sexual disorders (5), unfortunately, others have disorders of socialization and ethical functioning. This is called antisocial personality disorder according to the DSM5, and is characterized by (6): "Significant impairments inpersonality functioning manifest by: 1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b): a. Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived frompersonal gain, power, or pleasure. b. Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior. AND 2. Impairments ininterpersonal functioning (a or b): a. Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another. b. Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others."The fact that we can recognize lack of moral functioning as a mental disorder only illustrates how pervasive and necessary morality is otherwise. Con said: "The important thing is that different countries and societies have different moral standards and values."This is true. Moral systems have seemlingly limitless variations in the same way that language and cultural systems do. However, in the same way that language systems share features (spoken sounds, linking sounds to concepts, systems of address etc.) so do moral systems.Con said: "...American managers have less morality for the welfare of workers compared with European counterparts. In other words, morality of U.S. managers is not practical and their behaviour is not ethically acceptable. However, behaviour of European managers are practical from the viewpoint of morality and ethics."For the sake of argument, I will accept Con's example of executive compensation in the US and Europe as true in its entirety.Con argues that because European executives' pay is restricted by legislation, these executives are more moral than their American counterparts who suffer from no such restrictions. I suppose this is true in a sense. For example, a murderer is more guilty than someone who would like to commit murder but is physically prevented from doing so.However, the morality of US executives is very practical. Keep in mind that in the US, as elsewhere, rich people usually only socialize with other rich people. As I said, morality functions within the social group. Therefore, rich people are moral towards their peers. Short term profits, shifting factories off-shore and all the rest of it benefits the people in their social group, no doubt, and is applauded there. The responsibility to workers and the poor, outside the group, is far less compelling. As I said last round, this is the nature of morality.In Europe, any legislation to restrict income was almost certainly fought for, not by the rich, but by the middle and working classes and the left-wing. Their morality is also practical. They believe in equality, in caring for the vulnerable and reducing hardship for the poor. When acted on, these values create a stable society.SummaryAlthough Con has shown that individual and societal variation in morality exists, he has failed to show that morality isn't practical. This is because it has evolved in primates, including humans, because of the advantages it brings to societies. Its widespread existence is proof of its practical value. (1) http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...(2) http://www.cbsnews.com...(3) http://www.nature.com...(4) http://apps.who.int...(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...(6) http://www.dsm5.org...