[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
My view is its down to evolution. To understand why we are evolved to value the happiness of others is to understand why its useful to the survival of our genes.

In human terms that can reult in a very wide range of caring about the happiness of others. It ranges from people who wouldn't life a finger to help someone else (unless they 'computed' it was to their advantage), to people who would put their life at great risk to save a strangers puppy.

The attempt to explain moralilty in terms of the prisoners dilemma and cooperation is correct in part. No doubt evolution discovered that cooperation is good for the genes. However evolution is a fickle business and once prospective mates recognised morality as a good thing in a partner then selection of those most moral can lead morality a long way from its original use - maybe all the way to religon.


[/ QUOTE ] This post is pruely fascinating. I think I agree in whole. But the issue reagrding ethics with consciousness, is that we have the ability to see thru the evolutionary advangetages and recognize ethics for its original use, and current distorted use. We can determine if that original evolutionary use is correct, or if we wish to instead intently spread a correct ethical approach thru memes. Thus rising above our genes and memes to make correct actions.

There are some bogus ethics in religions that applied to people at an earlier time. The problem I see happing is that these bogus ethics devalue the "real" ethics.
<outside of thread topic maybe>
I could go on about how pascals wager instead of bringing more people to God, lets people think they have the benefites of a religous belief structure without having to do any of the Good ethical actions within the religious texts.
</outside of thread topic maybe>

But none of that is really my concern in this thread, can we know correct ethical actions, and what are they is. If we can't know or if there aren't than all beliefs are ethicaly equal, and only results count.