Why should you or I or anyone else value “sustaining society” more than our own comfort or advantage? — J

We need to take the long view of our evolution, going far back beyond civilization.

I’m going to return to my earlier point that notions of “good’ and “bad” only evolved through social interactions. The universe is neutral. To determine if something is good or bad requires human judgement, and what is being judged is one’s behavior towards another. Does it serve the interests of the group? This is what we are hard-wired for.

Consider the universal virtues of honesty, justice, loyalty or humanity – they can only come to light in relationships between people, or groups. Even creativity requires the artist and the receiver of the art.

There is no such thing as solitary goodness, or badness. Goodness is manifested in co-operation and strengthened relationships, and badness in harm to others.

Now, the question "Why should we?" might be answered by: Because we want to belong to the group. Because we want to live in peace. Because we want safety and security.

Biology can inform ethics without ethics being reducible to biology. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Much food for thought. The relationship between ethics and biology. From what you've said, I take it to mean that ethics is something bigger and beyond biology. Then, what else are we?

This reminds me of the story about the two sons of an alcoholic. One son grows up to be an alcoholic. When asked why, he answers, "I watched my father."

The other son grows up and stays completely away from alcohol. When asked why, he says, "I watched my father."

How do we explain the difference between the two sons?

And again, is the goal to achieve "the highest level of being human", or just to do what is right? — Banno

IMO, the highest level of being human is to be your most true, authentic self. This means getting the most in touch with your natural instincts, with your "wild knowing." The question becomes, does this coincide with doing right or doing wrong?

Are we born compassionate, and learn aggression, or are we born aggressive, and learn compassion?

What is our genetic predisposition before the environment makes its mark on us?

Life doesn't suck. As the spirit desires so it has — Gregory

I lost my husband 3 years ago to MS. The last couple years of his life were very difficult. At one point, as he was having a lot of trouble making a transfer, I said to him, "Tired of this life?"

He replied, "No, this life is good. It's this body I am tired of."

Disregarding what lies beyond our control means separating between what we can and cannot control with a will to control (power) — Gregory

Hmmm ... that's not how I see it. For example, sometimes we have to accept things in our life that suck. Things we cannot change. For example, a cancer diagnosis, Now, we might rail against God, and scream at the sky, "Why?"

But there is no answer to that question, "Why?" It was all just a random instance of cells malfunctioning.

You never walked to the car knowing you would get there? Usually changes in routine happen gradually — Gregory

Not always, as my example of getting hit by a bus illustrates. Or, suddenly getting diagnosed with cancer. Or, winning the lottery. Or, reading a good book that changes your perspective on life.

What does control over life mean? — Gregory

This reminds me of stoicism. There are things we control, there are things we do not, and wisdom lies in knowing the difference.

"Freedom is the only worthy goal in life. It is won by disregarding things that lie beyond our control."

There is also the philosophical tradition that to reach the highest level of being human was to live a virtuous life.

That might be so, but it is important not to conclude that what is the right thing to do is what makes you feel good. — Banno

I guess it depends on the person and i am only speaking from my own experience.

But making plans in life implies we can predict the future with some accuracy — Gregory

Making plans speaks to routine, and we do have routine, but routine may be interrupted.

If all is random how do we make decisions by predicting the future? Are you saying we have no control over our lives? — Gregory

We can plan, and make decisions, but we can't predict if a bus is going to hit us tomorrow.

There's this whole big area of reasoning that you are avoiding. — Banno

You're probably right. But the question seems simple. "Should we do good?" Of course, we should do good. I always feel good when I do the right thing. Then I can better respect myself.

But I am also a big believer in the biological basis of behavior, and primitive motivations.

Ought we? — Banno

This question seems moot, since we do. We would have to totally reprogram human brains to get away from that. We would have to be a totally different species!

The point is that "one ought do good" is no more informative than "one ought do what one ought do" or "doing good is good". — Banno

One ought to do good because it contributes to their survival.

How does it ignore human nature — Banno

As mentioned, we operate on a system of rewards an punishments.

how is it akin to "Do this because I said so"? — Banno

It's not giving a reason for doing good.

we ought to do what is good just because it is good. What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good. — Banno

This ignores human nature. It's akin to saying, "Do this because I said so."

Humans operate on a system of rewards and punishments. If you do good, there will be rewards. if you do bad, there will be consequences.

There remains the logical gap between what we do and what we ought do. — Banno

The use of the word "ought" implies guidelines externally put on us. So, okay, what guides us? I would say that belonging to the group is our biggest social motivator.

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. — Seeker25

I think you have mixed up your cause and effect. It's the other way around. The laws and principals that "regulate" nature gave rise to the diversity of life on earth.

whereas genocide is simply an act contrary to evolution, — Seeker25

Every genocide ever carried out was done with the express fear that if the "other" were not exterminated, the survival of the exterminating group was threatened. So, if done in the interests of survival, it does seem to fit evolutionary principles.

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good, everything that opposes it is bad, and everything else is indifferent. It is precisely in this "indifferent" space that people must exercise their freedom. — Seeker25

Interesting thought. But I am not sure that I accept your premise that there are things that align, or oppose, or are indifferent to the process of evolution. The theory of evolution merely says that life changes over time. The acts of humans only affect this in so far as they change the environment in which evolution is taking place.

My background in biology has me taking the side that says all is random. In nature, there is no such thing as a closed system. There are always random events that impinge upon and influence the outcome of any "cause" in producing its "effect."

The Democrats try to get voters to vote in their own interests. They appeal to the voter's rationality (that's why they lost).

The Republicans have to get voters to vote against their own interests. They appeal to emotion (that's why they won).

This is all backed up in a wonderful book I read, by Jonathan Haidt:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

There are different way in which to answer this question.

I'll go to the evolutionary answer. What is the evolutionary advantage of being good? Well, it keeps you as part of the group, and belonging to a group meant the difference between survival and perishing. (Maybe it still does.) A social animal relies on acceptance in the group.

I'll add to that - it feels good to do good.

Any thought you have exists as neurons in your brain — Hyper

We need to understand the difference between structure and function.

The neurons are the structure. "Thought" - i.e. your mind - is the function.

It's electro-stimulation of the neurons that causes thought.

Now, is it real? Pretty real to me. Is that not all that matters?

between that of real and fake — Hyper

To me, this suggests the distinction between "true" and "false."

That leads into a discussion of objective and subjective truth.

I think the "real" incorporates both objective and subjective truth.

I know my mother loves me. This is my subjective truth, it is real.

The answer so much depends on your understanding of what God "is."

If your belief is that he is a supernatural being, then, no, evidence will not be available to us in the earthly sphere. Science is limited to what can be observed and measured, and by its very definition the supernatural cannot be.

But if you are a pantheist, like me, you see God in everything that exists. God is nature, God is the universe.