Morality: Bridging the Gap Between Objective and Subjective Realms

MayCaesar

I think that morality should be guided by objective factors, but itself is inherently subjective.

Let us start with a conscious organism. A conscious organism can have positive or negative experiences, and its objective by definition is to maximize the former and minimize the latter. This is a very "objective objective": it is metaphysically impossible for an organism to intentionally seek negative experiences for the very definition of negative experiences implies their purposeful avoidance. An organism may intentionally choose to experience certain negative emotions and feelings, but only with the purpose of maximizing positive feelings in the long run (e.g. doing hard physical exercise in order to be healthier and happier in the future).

Morality is a set of general rules that determine what choices the organism is to make in common situations. Given the above, it must be completely guided by the need of the organism to maximize positive and minimize negative experiences. Therefore it is not random, not arbitrary; it cannot be developed based on dreams or fantasies. For instance, in one way or another, morality should guide the organism towards minimization of pain, for pain is inherently a negative experience. Again, the organism may choose to endure pain intentionally, but only in order to prevent bigger pain from being experienced, physical or emotional. The organism may even choose to sacrifice itself for the alternative of being alive and in extreme emotional pain is seen as less desirable to it than annihilation. One can even develop such a twisted moral code as one saying that maximization of misery is the ultimate purpose of one's life: the implication here is still that following this code, in a certain way, is less painful than not following it and living a worthless life.

A proper approach to morality therefore involves a lot of observation and introspection. It is an individual activity, although multiple individuals can group up in order to help each other with this task - and possibly develop certain common moral elements that are assumed to be universal or, at least, shared among the population. Such elements can include actions that destabilize the society and make it miserable for everyone to live in in the long run, hence all known societies have outlawed murder, rape (at least its most egregious forms), theft... All of these considerations are completely objective.

Now, where does subjectivity enter the equation? At two points:
1. Every conscious organism has its own unique, subjective, experiences.
2. Maximization of positive and minimization of negative experiences allows for a variety of strategies.
The first point is self-evident. The second point derives from the fact that almost every choice a conscious organism makes is a trade-off. What is better, saving life of 1 child by spending $1,000, or saving life of 10 children by spending $100,000? There is no objective quantity to calculate here. In fact, strictly speaking, this point is a consequence of the second point: as different conscious organisms react differently to different events, it is natural that such calculations, if at all possible, will differ across them.

An interesting question to ponder is: is it possible that the "best" set of morals for certain conscious beings is such that exercising it makes most other conscious beings miserable? I believe that the answer is yes, although I do think that such organisms must differ significantly from the rest. I do not think that a human being can maximize the set of their positive experiences by, say, putting every other human being in a state of perpetual misery: our biological makeup makes us intrinsically interconnected and well-being of those around us necessarily rubs off on us.

However, consider a hypothetical scenario in a fantasy Universe. You have a small number of vampires and a large number of humans, and all humans are afraid of vampires and refuse to communicate with them. The vampires depend on human blood for survival, and in the ideal world they might be able to find a peaceful form of coexistence with humans - however, in this case humans are strongly opposed to such coexistence. In that case, it appears to me, proper morality for vampires would necessarily involve some sort of forceful subjugation and enslavement of humanity - unless vampires can come up with some incredible scientific discovery allowing for better solutions.

This example to me suggests that attempts of various "philosophical optimists" such as Communists or Objectivists to come up with some set of morals that could be universally applicable to everyone and make everyone happy and prosperous are futile. There are certainly more functional moral systems on a societal scale than others, but utopias seem to be impossible given any degree of variety in the consciousness of the members of the population. As long as any two humans differ from each other in anything affecting their consciousness, there cannot be a universal "optimal" set of morals. Unless we allow for a more flexible morality accounting for such differences - which defeats the whole purpose of morals as at that point we are talking about particulars and not generals.

just_sayin

@ZeusAres42

If there is objective morality, then there must be an objective law giver, ie God.  Here's why:  if there is no God then all that exists is just matter.  Matter may obey physical laws, but not moral ones.  In fact it is wrong to think of matter having morals.  Matter moves and acts as the laws of nature govern.  It would be wrong to say that a natural event was immoral because natural events don't have any intentions.  Since man and animals are just matter too, their actions are therefore not governed by any objective moral law but by natural laws.  Therefore morals, in a world without God, are nothing more than individual or social constructs made for the benefit of either the individual or group.  There is no ultimate source of objective moral truth outside of individual or group beliefs.

The problem with morals only extending to the individual or societal level is that they aren't objective, they change on the whim of the individual or group.  One group may say killing Jews is OK like the Nazis did, another say it is wrong.  A sociopath or a pro-abortion supporter may say it is OK to kill innocent human lives, while others would argue that we should not kill innocent human life.  There is no objective moral law you can appeal to, because no objective moral lawgiver exists in this scenario.  

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

I think that morality should be guided by objective factors, but itself is inherently subjective.

Let us start with a conscious organism. A conscious organism can have positive or negative experiences, and its objective by definition is to maximize the former and minimize the latter. This is a very "objective objective": it is metaphysically impossible for an organism to intentionally seek negative experiences for the very definition of negative experiences implies their purposeful avoidance. An organism may intentionally choose to experience certain negative emotions and feelings, but only with the purpose of maximizing positive feelings in the long run (e.g. doing hard physical exercise in order to be healthier and happier in the future).

Morality is a set of general rules that determine what choices the organism is to make in common situations. Given the above, it must be completely guided by the need of the organism to maximize positive and minimize negative experiences. Therefore it is not random, not arbitrary; it cannot be developed based on dreams or fantasies. For instance, in one way or another, morality should guide the organism towards minimization of pain, for pain is inherently a negative experience. Again, the organism may choose to endure pain intentionally, but only in order to prevent bigger pain from being experienced, physical or emotional. The organism may even choose to sacrifice itself for the alternative of being alive and in extreme emotional pain is seen as less desirable to it than annihilation. One can even develop such a twisted moral code as one saying that maximization of misery is the ultimate purpose of one's life: the implication here is still that following this code, in a certain way, is less painful than not following it and living a worthless life.

A proper approach to morality therefore involves a lot of observation and introspection. It is an individual activity, although multiple individuals can group up in order to help each other with this task - and possibly develop certain common moral elements that are assumed to be universal or, at least, shared among the population. Such elements can include actions that destabilize the society and make it miserable for everyone to live in in the long run, hence all known societies have outlawed murder, rape (at least its most egregious forms), theft... All of these considerations are completely objective.

Now, where does subjectivity enter the equation? At two points:
1. Every conscious organism has its own unique, subjective, experiences.
2. Maximization of positive and minimization of negative experiences allows for a variety of strategies.
The first point is self-evident. The second point derives from the fact that almost every choice a conscious organism makes is a trade-off. What is better, saving life of 1 child by spending $1,000, or saving life of 10 children by spending $100,000? There is no objective quantity to calculate here. In fact, strictly speaking, this point is a consequence of the second point: as different conscious organisms react differently to different events, it is natural that such calculations, if at all possible, will differ across them.

An interesting question to ponder is: is it possible that the "best" set of morals for certain conscious beings is such that exercising it makes most other conscious beings miserable? I believe that the answer is yes, although I do think that such organisms must differ significantly from the rest. I do not think that a human being can maximize the set of their positive experiences by, say, putting every other human being in a state of perpetual misery: our biological makeup makes us intrinsically interconnected and well-being of those around us necessarily rubs off on us.

However, consider a hypothetical scenario in a fantasy Universe. You have a small number of vampires and a large number of humans, and all humans are afraid of vampires and refuse to communicate with them. The vampires depend on human blood for survival, and in the ideal world they might be able to find a peaceful form of coexistence with humans - however, in this case humans are strongly opposed to such coexistence. In that case, it appears to me, proper morality for vampires would necessarily involve some sort of forceful subjugation and enslavement of humanity - unless vampires can come up with some incredible scientific discovery allowing for better solutions.

This example to me suggests that attempts of various "philosophical optimists" such as Communists or Objectivists to come up with some set of morals that could be universally applicable to everyone and make everyone happy and prosperous are futile. There are certainly more functional moral systems on a societal scale than others, but utopias seem to be impossible given any degree of variety in the consciousness of the members of the population. As long as any two humans differ from each other in anything affecting their consciousness, there cannot be a universal "optimal" set of morals. Unless we allow for a more flexible morality accounting for such differences - which defeats the whole purpose of morals as at that point we are talking about particulars and not generals.

@MayCaesar, 

While I resonate deeply with most of your perspective, I'd like to bring attention to the interplay between objective and subjective morality, rather than viewing them as separate entities. The very existence of moral frameworks across diverse cultures, while varying in specifics, suggests a shared underlying moral instinct. This instinct, I argue, is an objective facet of our nature, an evolutionary trait hardwired into our DNA that facilitates social cohesion and survival.

Every human society, irrespective of its isolation or beliefs, has devised some moral framework. The consistency in the occurrence of such systems across humanity points to an objective basis for morality's existence. Where the subjectivity arises, as you aptly noted, is in the specific codification of these moral rules, influenced by cultural, historical, and environmental factors.

However, the very ubiquity of these moral codes, and their near-universal presence across human societies, suggests that the objective nature of morality's existence might overshadow its subjective manifestations. If morality were purely subjective, we might expect to see societies entirely devoid of it or ones where what's perceived as "immoral" becomes the norm. But we don't. There's always some form of moral structure.

In essence, while the specific moral values we uphold may be subjective and moulded by our personal and societal experiences, the inherent predisposition towards having a moral code appears to be an objective characteristic of our species. It's this intrinsic propensity that makes me believe that moral objectivity has a more foundational role in our nature than pure subjectivity.

Just as no house can stand tall without a solid foundation, so too does every society rely on an inherent moral bedrock to thrive and function. This foundational morality, universal in its presence across diverse cultures and epochs, underscores the objective nature of certain moral principles. Whether it's the basic tenets of right and wrong or deeper moral imperatives, this foundation is testament to the fact that there are universal constants in the moral realm. Even as the architectural details — the customs, rites, and specific moral codes — vary widely, reflecting the subjective experiences of each community, the foundational underpinning remains consistent, indicating the undeniable objective aspect of morality.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

@ZeusAres42

If there is objective morality, then there must be an objective law giver, ie God.  Here's why:  if there is no God then all that exists is just matter.  Matter may obey physical laws, but not moral ones.  In fact it is wrong to think of matter having morals.  Matter moves and acts as the laws of nature govern.  It would be wrong to say that a natural event was immoral because natural events don't have any intentions.  Since man and animals are just matter too, their actions are therefore not governed by any objective moral law but by natural laws.  Therefore morals, in a world without God, are nothing more than individual or social constructs made for the benefit of either the individual or group.  There is no ultimate source of objective moral truth outside of individual or group beliefs.

The problem with morals only extending to the individual or societal level is that they aren't objective, they change on the whim of the individual or group.  One group may say killing Jews is OK like the Nazis did, another say it is wrong.  A sociopath or a pro-abortion supporter may say it is OK to kill innocent human lives, while others would argue that we should not kill innocent human life.  There is no objective moral law you can appeal to, because no objective moral lawgiver exists in this scenario.  

@just_sayin

Your assertion presents a compelling viewpoint, particularly within the context of the age-old question of God's existence in relation to morality. However, I'd like to delve deeper into some of the assumptions and claims made in the response.

Firstly, the crux of your argument seems to hinge on the belief that objective morality must necessarily be derived from an external, sentient lawgiver, specifically God. But let's ponder a moment on the nature of laws in general. The laws of physics, for instance, are universally accepted as objective, yet they don't necessitate a "lawgiver" in the form of a conscious being. They simply are. In the same vein, objective moral laws, if they exist, could very well be intrinsic to the nature of conscious beings, evolving alongside our cognitive faculties without the need for an external architect.

You've mentioned that without God, all that exists is matter, and matter only obeys physical laws, not moral ones. However, consciousness, empathy, and social cooperation – all pivotal in shaping moral principles – aren’t merely consequences of lifeless matter. They are emergent properties of complex biological systems. Just as the wondrous beauty of a rainbow emerges from simple droplets of water and light, moral considerations can emerge from the intricate web of biological, social, and cognitive processes.

Furthermore, saying that morals without God would just be individual or social constructs doesn't undermine their value or efficacy. Societal constructs, though they might seem subjective, can still be based on shared, objective criteria. For instance, societies might develop rules based on the objective pursuit of well-being, health, or prosperity. If a society determined that lying or theft generally detracts from these aims, then prohibitions against such behaviors would be objective within that framework.

Your reference to the Nazis and the sociopath underscores the dangers of relative morality. But even in religious frameworks, interpretations of God's will or scripture have led to similarly tragic consequences. Hence, invoking God doesn’t necessarily solve the problem of divergent moral interpretations.

Lastly, the mere existence of a debate around objective vs. subjective morality indicates humanity's pursuit of moral understanding. This pursuit, in itself, can be seen as an inherent characteristic of our species – whether or not it's divinely inspired. By engaging in such discussions, we refine, challenge, and improve our collective moral compass.

In essence, while the existence of God can offer a compelling framework for objective morality, it is by no means the only possible foundation. Morality, in its rich tapestry, can emerge from a complex interplay of biology, cognition, and societal interactions, irrespective of divine intervention.

just_sayin

@ZeusAres42 said:
Firstly, the crux of your argument seems to hinge on the belief that objective morality must necessarily be derived from an external, sentient lawgiver, specifically God. But let's ponder a moment on the nature of laws in general. The laws of physics, for instance, are universally accepted as objective, yet they don't necessitate a "lawgiver" in the form of a conscious being. They simply are. In the same vein, objective moral laws, if they exist, could very well be intrinsic to the nature of conscious beings, evolving alongside our cognitive faculties without the need for an external architect.

It seems like you are saying moral laws come from nature and have evolved in human beings.  That would suggest that moral laws are subjective to either the human individual or the group.  Not objective.  What is of benefit to one individual, may be detrimental to another.  While physical laws govern matter, matter does not create objective moral laws.  The source for objective moral laws can be God, an individual or a group.  I've already explained that individuals and groups often have opposing moral objectives. The only viable source for OBJECTIVE moral laws is a universal lawgiver.

You've mentioned that without God, all that exists is matter, and matter only obeys physical laws, not moral ones. However, consciousness, empathy, and social cooperation – all pivotal in shaping moral principles – aren’t merely consequences of lifeless matter. They are emergent properties of complex biological systems. Just as the wondrous beauty of a rainbow emerges from simple droplets of water and light, moral considerations can emerge from the intricate web of biological, social, and cognitive processes.

If morals 'emerge' from biological, social, or cognitive processes then you are saying they come from individuals or groups, which again conflicts with the evidence which says individuals and groups have different moral values between them.  Hence, their morals can be subjective, but not objective.

Furthermore, saying that morals without God would just be individual or social constructs doesn't undermine their value or efficacy. Societal constructs, though they might seem subjective, can still be based on shared, objective criteria. For instance, societies might develop rules based on the objective pursuit of well-being, health, or prosperity. If a society determined that lying or theft generally detracts from these aims, then prohibitions against such behaviors would be objective within that framework.

If morals arise from social constructs and are subjective, then they aren't OBJECTIVE.  A group might hold that moral value, but another group would not.  That would make their morals subjective to the group, not objective.  

Your reference to the Nazis and the sociopath underscores the dangers of relative morality. But even in religious frameworks, interpretations of God's will or scripture have led to similarly tragic consequences. Hence, invoking God doesn’t necessarily solve the problem of divergent moral interpretations.

If I go to concert and hear someone play a bad note, I don't think to myself Beethoven couldn't create a decent symphony.  I lay the blame at the person responsible.  Because human individuals misconstrue God's laws, doesn't mean God is to blame.  Again, if you want objective moral laws, you need an objective moral lawgiver. Human individuals or groups result in little fiefdoms of subjective morality, and who can tell who is right then?  It is just one person's view or one group's view over another.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

@ZeusAres42 said:
Firstly, the crux of your argument seems to hinge on the belief that objective morality must necessarily be derived from an external, sentient lawgiver, specifically God. But let's ponder a moment on the nature of laws in general. The laws of physics, for instance, are universally accepted as objective, yet they don't necessitate a "lawgiver" in the form of a conscious being. They simply are. In the same vein, objective moral laws, if they exist, could very well be intrinsic to the nature of conscious beings, evolving alongside our cognitive faculties without the need for an external architect.

It seems like you are saying moral laws come from nature and have evolved in human beings.  That would suggest that moral laws are subjective to either the human individual or the group.  Not objective.  What is of benefit to one individual, may be detrimental to another.  While physical laws govern matter, matter does not create objective moral laws.  The source for objective moral laws can be God, an individual or a group.  I've already explained that individuals and groups often have opposing moral objectives. The only viable source for OBJECTIVE moral laws is a universal lawgiver.

You've mentioned that without God, all that exists is matter, and matter only obeys physical laws, not moral ones. However, consciousness, empathy, and social cooperation – all pivotal in shaping moral principles – aren’t merely consequences of lifeless matter. They are emergent properties of complex biological systems. Just as the wondrous beauty of a rainbow emerges from simple droplets of water and light, moral considerations can emerge from the intricate web of biological, social, and cognitive processes.

If morals 'emerge' from biological, social, or cognitive processes then you are saying they come from individuals or groups, which again conflicts with the evidence which says individuals and groups have different moral values between them.  Hence, their morals can be subjective, but not objective.

Furthermore, saying that morals without God would just be individual or social constructs doesn't undermine their value or efficacy. Societal constructs, though they might seem subjective, can still be based on shared, objective criteria. For instance, societies might develop rules based on the objective pursuit of well-being, health, or prosperity. If a society determined that lying or theft generally detracts from these aims, then prohibitions against such behaviors would be objective within that framework.

If morals arise from social constructs and are subjective, then they aren't OBJECTIVE.  A group might hold that moral value, but another group would not.  That would make their morals subjective to the group, not objective.  

Your reference to the Nazis and the sociopath underscores the dangers of relative morality. But even in religious frameworks, interpretations of God's will or scripture have led to similarly tragic consequences. Hence, invoking God doesn’t necessarily solve the problem of divergent moral interpretations.

If I go to concert and hear someone play a bad note, I don't think to myself Beethoven couldn't create a decent symphony.  I lay the blame at the person responsible.  Because human individuals misconstrue God's laws, doesn't mean God is to blame.  Again, if you want objective moral laws, you need an objective moral lawgiver. Human individuals or groups result in little fiefdoms of subjective morality, and who can tell who is right then?  It is just one person's view or one group's view over another.

@just_sayin

In our ongoing pursuit of understanding, the debate surrounding the nature of morality resonates deeply, echoing the age-old quest to discern between what is universally true and what is uniquely individual. Much like the harmonious interplay of instruments in a symphony, each contributing its unique voice yet together creating a unified sound, morality can be perceived as a blend of both objective and subjective notes.

Consider for a moment the universality of music. Across the world, certain chords and sequences universally evoke similar emotional responses in listeners, reflecting a sort of objective core to our appreciation of melody and rhythm. Yet, the very same chords, when placed in varied sequences or juxtaposed with different instruments, can tell a myriad of stories, colored by the composer's unique perspective and cultural background. In much the same vein, morality, while rooted in certain universal principles, is often shaped and nuanced by individual and cultural interpretations.

Evolution offers a compelling testament to the idea that certain moral behaviors, fostering social cohesion and species survival, may possess an objective basis. Behaviors such as nurturing or cooperative alliances, ubiquitous across various cultures and epochs, suggest an underlying objective moral structure. These aren't arbitrary constructs but evolutionary imperatives that, when followed, generally result in flourishing societies.

Yet, the beauty of human experience lies in its diversity. This diverse tapestry of individual and collective histories inevitably injects a degree of subjectivity into our moral codes. It's essential, however, not to misconstrue this subjectivity as arbitrariness. Just as a musician's individual flair doesn't negate the objective principles of music theory but rather builds upon them, subjective moral interpretations are often expansions upon universally accepted moral foundations.

There's a common thread of thought which proposes that without a universal lawgiver, objective morality remains elusive. However, let's ponder upon mathematics, an arena where truths emerge without an apparent lawgiver. The principles of mathematics exist, waiting to be discovered, not dictated. Similarly, certain moral truths might be embedded in the very fabric of conscious existence, independent of external imposition.

The argument that different interpretations of moral codes equate to their subjectivity, thereby negating any objectivity, appears compelling on the surface. Yet, this view oversimplifies the rich mosaic of human moral understanding. Just as different genres of music, from classical to jazz, employ varying interpretations of scales without negating the objective principles of music, varied moral codes can coexist within an overarching objective framework.

In essence, to reduce morality to strictly objective or subjective domains is akin to limiting music to a single note. The richness and depth of the moral experience, like the beauty of a symphony, arise from the harmonious interplay of both universal truths and individual interpretations. Recognizing this dualistic nature not only broadens our understanding but also celebrates the intricacies and wonders of the human experience.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar, 

While I resonate deeply with most of your perspective, I'd like to bring attention to the interplay between objective and subjective morality, rather than viewing them as separate entities. The very existence of moral frameworks across diverse cultures, while varying in specifics, suggests a shared underlying moral instinct. This instinct, I argue, is an objective facet of our nature, an evolutionary trait hardwired into our DNA that facilitates social cohesion and survival.

Every human society, irrespective of its isolation or beliefs, has devised some moral framework. The consistency in the occurrence of such systems across humanity points to an objective basis for morality's existence. Where the subjectivity arises, as you aptly noted, is in the specific codification of these moral rules, influenced by cultural, historical, and environmental factors.

However, the very ubiquity of these moral codes, and their near-universal presence across human societies, suggests that the objective nature of morality's existence might overshadow its subjective manifestations. If morality were purely subjective, we might expect to see societies entirely devoid of it or ones where what's perceived as "immoral" becomes the norm. But we don't. There's always some form of moral structure.

In essence, while the specific moral values we uphold may be subjective and moulded by our personal and societal experiences, the inherent predisposition towards having a moral code appears to be an objective characteristic of our species. It's this intrinsic propensity that makes me believe that moral objectivity has a more foundational role in our nature than pure subjectivity.

Just as no house can stand tall without a solid foundation, so too does every society rely on an inherent moral bedrock to thrive and function. This foundational morality, universal in its presence across diverse cultures and epochs, underscores the objective nature of certain moral principles. Whether it's the basic tenets of right and wrong or deeper moral imperatives, this foundation is testament to the fact that there are universal constants in the moral realm. Even as the architectural details — the customs, rites, and specific moral codes — vary widely, reflecting the subjective experiences of each community, the foundational underpinning remains consistent, indicating the undeniable objective aspect of morality.

Any biological system, or any physical system in general for that matter, is a subject to laws of the Universe. Universality of those laws inevitably leads to a degree of universality among individual objects of a certain class - for instance, all stars at the beginning of their life cycles feature hydrogen-dominant cores. Biological organisms specifically are subject to the same general evolutionary forces, leading to general convergence towards certain subsets of behaviors. I agree with you that, from a certain perspective, that subset is determined objectively - however, there can be a lot of variability in the evolutionary processes due to small environmental fluctuations. It might very well be the case, for example, that had the Earth happened to be 99% of its current size, the entire evolutionary history would look completely differently, and the products of it, including dominant moral values, might look nothing like ours.
However, for the purpose of the current discussion, it makes sense to take the evolutionary history for granted and to look at its products, namely humans. While human organisms vary significantly, there is also a very strong genetic overlap among all of them. Human organisms generally require the same resources, the same habitable conditions, the same cooperation opportunities to thrive. These requirements constrain the space of possible (viable) moral systems significantly, and it is no wonder that across all human societies there is a vast intersection of moral values some of which are found in every single society known to us.

However, again, it does not seem to contradict my claim that morality is inherently subjective. Morality is developed based on objective considerations, but those considerations in themselves do not determine moral values. An analogy I would suggest is the work of an engineer: an engineer must be guided by objective laws of the Universe when developing his designs, but what he develops is completely up to him - one engineer may design a car, another a bridge, another yet a coffee maker...
The flaw of this analogy is that engineering is merely a part of an engineer's life and it does not have to guide the rest of it, while morality, to a degree, is applicable to everything we do. An engineer can choose to focus on designing cars or bridges - he does not have to design both. Morality, however, has to provide the individual with guidance whenever he makes any imaginable choice, and it naturally constrains the space of viable moral systems. An engineer may choose to work on a design of a very obscure tool without dying, while any individual choosing a very obscure system of morals may very well die quickly as a consequence.
This flaw, however, does not challenge subjectivity of morals: after all, no objective imperative exists according to which death is somehow undesirable. Humans have biological aversion to death and, in general, experience pain as the death approaches and pleasure as it grows more distant, so they have natural drive towards avoiding death - but, as many moral systems (in many cases endorsing self-sacrifice and condemning self-actualization) have shown, this drive can manifest in many different ways, and pure self-preservation instinct can be overridden by other, higher-level instincts.

I cannot think of a single moral system that could not be accepted in a society under certain conditions. There are certainly many moral systems that are probably unsustainable and would spell doom of the society if accepted - but nothing prevents those moral systems from existing at a certain point in time. Some societies (North Korea comes to mind) appear to have moral systems that are mockeries of what the rest of humanity takes for granted, yet sometimes survive for centuries, and elements of those moral systems carry through millennia even as entire societies collapse, reincarnate and start anew. In fact, many moral values that are virtually universally accepted in the modern world on the historical timescale are extremely novel: for instance, the idea of sovereignty of individual did not really exist anywhere in the world until ~2,500 years ago, yet human societies are, at least, a few hundred thousand years old. In Western societies, the dominant values are derived mostly from the philosophers of Ancient Greece and medieval European Christian theologists, yet both Ancient Greece and early European Christian nations themselves were anomalies that did not necessarily have to emerge when they did.

Humans happen to be extremely adaptable, and they can grow comfortable even in the most theoretically adversarial environments. Someone living on Manhattan might be completely unable to understand how it is possible to live in the middle of the desert in sub-Saharan Africa, amidst endless ethnic wars, with no access to modern technology - yet people living there generally do not think much of it. This suggests that even the most seemingly twisted moral codes, when embraced by a society, may be accepted by individuals. Who is to say that, say, the Sith code (from Star Wars) cannot serve as the moral base of a human society? It is interesting to think about to what extent the moral values almost universally accepted by human societies (today and in the past) are a natural product of the physical and biological realities we find ourselves in, and to what extent they are a product of chance, of small fluctuations in our conditions. What if Rome had not fallen when it did? Could we be living in a completely different world today, with moral values unrecognizable to the modern human? I am not convinced that the answer is "no".