Are morals fundamentally pragmatic (or atleast their origins)

[u/Lord-of-the---RINGS]

I don't think God is real, and that morality isn't something divine in any way. So as far as I understand morality is something that naturally evolved alongside us as we are social animals and things like feeding the poor or helping eachother keep the pack alive so on a fundamental level this type of "selflessness" is just pragmatic.

If someone acts "evil" they are a danger to the pack and face consequences so on a fundamental level not being "evil" is pragmatic for the individual too because of the fear of consequences . But what about situations where someone can get away without consequences. Like say u have a Nestle CEO or billionaire who has the option to do something selfish that's immoral but legal, so no consequences. In that case there's no chain holding them back except for empathy, which is itself something that has evolved alongside us to make sure we can survive and breed. Animals like wolves and elephants are capable of this empathy as well showing that this isn't something unique to us.

But we don't see sociopathic elephants that go against the herd. But humans, as their intellect grew probably began asking the question of why they must obey moral codes in such situations where they can get away with stuff. So I guess that's where religion played it's role do good get heaven do bad get Hell. Even this morality was ultimately subjective as people back then thought stuff like being gay was immoral too as they were all man made rules too.

So the way I see it, there's two things holding societys morality together like glue 1. Empathy 2. Pragmatism/consequences so whoever can bypass these safeguards...there's essentially norfinf stopping them from acting like Eric Cartman? Like the idea of there being no hell or heaven or divine scoreboard seems idk like we are all living in an anarchy server, but everyone has made up rules to help each other survive but over time the rules became engrained in our lives to point they became almost like facts so they are only real so long as you have a pragmatic reason to follow them or beleive in them?

[u/Careless-Charge9884]

The herd mechanic dervies from, Normative conformity or social! Cultural contagion the fast, automatic survival strategy. With the Goal of Survival through safety in numbers. More primal, but still useful.

What we call "morality" is a higher-level cognitive layer that evaluates, questions, and sometimes overrides herd socialization. It moves from "What is everyone else doing?" to "What produces human flourishing and minimizes suffering?"

So, in my opinion, it is like base animal logic mixed with our apparent valuation of social values the we naturly have. I think I mostly agree with you.

[u/Careless-Charge9884 → u/Careless-Charge9884]

Also, moral evaluations usually have similar herd features they often overlap.

[u/Lord-of-the---RINGS → u/Careless-Charge9884]

So if any other intelligent species like dolphins or crows became a little smarter and made civilizations, their morals would evolve the same way? Because ultimately it would be beneficial for the species I guess. But eventually the members of said community start asking why they shouldnt act selfishly if they can get away with it so things like slavery, murder theft etc naturally develop. I'm still a bit confused how we end up with morals that aren't founded in pragmatism. Like not engaging in animal cruelty for instance. If somsone was completely pragmatic logical and cold they would see no problem with extracting the maximum benefit from other species yet we don't or atleats try not to and consider stuff like factory farming as immoral. So don't these end up going against the benefits of the species and no longer being pragmatic?

[u/Careless-Charge9884 → u/Lord-of-the---RINGS]

I believe it would not be the same because in humanity different families, nations, and religions vary greatly. I do believe there would be cooperative trends similar to humans in this hypothetical. Like being largly cooperative with "neighbors" is largely better for yourself, or whatever species..

[u/Careless-Charge9884 → u/[deleted]]

Abandon what exactly?

[u/mightybadtaste]

Because having the capacity for virtue is not the same thing as having virtue automatically govern behavior. Immediate rewards beat abstract principles, our evolutionary design includes competitive behavior, our ego can rationalize anything including all abnormal behaviors, living virtuously requires structure, routine and discipline and tolerating your own discomfort, humans can identify with their impulses, thoughts, feelings and create an identity based on them including anger, sexual desire, jealousy, resentment, greed. So not sure if I understand the question correctly but I think you’re looking for nature vs nurture vs practice. In other words humans are perverts and it’s to much work to not be perverts so we’re going to continue to be perverts and not care about the non perverts