It is possible that such behavior is genetic, as more sympathetic societies passed on their genes because they were more successful. I am talking about how the eugenicists think only of physical traits, trying to "improve" the race by weeding out what they think is undesirable. What they don't realize is that their very actions are undesirable according to Darwin.
Both Darwin and Christianity agree on the subject, in opposition to the eugenicists. No surprise since Darwin was originally Christian.
Morality cannot be explained simply by positing a prior moral rule since morality is what is supposed to be accounted for in the first place.
Concepts of morality grew from what worked best for a society. They kind of noticed that murder did not make for a cohesive society, so it gets outlawed, in tribal rules and later in religion when that developed beyond "Ogg, Sun God angry" and into a mechanism for enforcing societal rules.
There are moral and immoral genes?
I am talking about how the eugenicists think only of physical traits, trying to "improve" the race by weeding out what they think is undesirable. What they don't realize is that their very actions are undesirable according to Darwin.
Ok. The actions of eugenicists are undesirable according to Darwin. So what? The actions of eugenicists are desirable according to eugenicists. Desirability is in the eye of the beholder. Desirability does not equal morality. If you're going to insist on completely naturalistic explanations based on material causes, then material causes are all you have. “The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist."
None of Darwins's biological principles can be translated into moral imperatives. What Darwin did with his completely naturalistic presuppositions is destroy the bridge he needed to cross to reach his moral judgments.
Both Darwin and Christianity agree on the subject, in opposition to the eugenicists. No surprise since Darwin was originally Christian.
Darwin could not remain thoroughly consistent with his own naturalistic premises, so he tacitly borrowed from the Christian world view with its transcendent moral standard to arrive at his moral judgments. He just never acknowledged the debt.
Concepts of morality grew from what worked best for a society.
Is there an obligation to do "what's best for a society"?
Cordially,