BB, my cyber darling. So now we're "macroevolutionists" I see. Anyway, I don't agree with the above paragraph. I think human nature is fairly fixed, regardless of future evolutionary changes. Were our species to evolve into something different -- which might occur if we settled various planetary systems and different populations were isolated for long (really long) periods -- I can't imagine a scenario where our current concepts of justice wouldn't be applicable to all the various offshoots of humanity. They still wouldn't like to be murdered, or have their property stolen, etc. If they had any kind of intelligence and a functioning society, they'd need the same morality as humans now require. (Of course, I don't see humans evolving into a termite-like species, so I don't need to consider the "morality" of such critters, if any.)
I too am amused when betty & others label us as "macroevolutionists" in a way that implies it's our philosophy.
Let me remind betty, as I've mentioned before, that at bottom it's not as important to know how we came to be humans, as it is to know how we should live our lives given that we are humans.
Hello PatrickHenry! On the one hand, you say you think human nature is "relatively fixed." But then you say that different populations, if isolated long enough, might evolve into something different; i.e., into something with a different nature, I gather; but that you have doubts that such evolution would wind up with a termite-like species which, of course, involves a quite radically different type of nature than the human.
Then somehow you assume or infer (projecting your current stock of knowledge and state of awareness) that notions of justice and morality would be pretty much the same -- or at least the need of them, this gets kinda fuzzy here -- in all cases or at least most cases, with the possible exception of the termite scenario. But then you don't know anything about termite morality to go on, I gather; thus you do not further speculate.
Some thoughts. In order for ideas of justice and morality to arise, there must be as the ground condition self-aware and self-reflected consciousness. It is the nature of homo sapiens to possess this characteristic, distinguishing feature, though it is highly doubtful that the same may be said for termites.
So I guess it really would depend on what forms subsequent evolutions of human nature were to take before we could speculate about whether they would care about or need justice or morality, let alone what forms, if any, such would take in their community life.
And of course, such a thing is impossible on its face. We do not stand outside of space and time such that we may view the current state of the entire universe as an "object" given to consciousness. We are in the stream of the process -- Life -- part and parcel of it; in its totality, it cannot ever be a discrete, isolated "object of consciousness" for us. If we think it can, well -- that's what makes an ideologue.
And what about "evolutions" of human nature that have supposedly already taken place over the vastness of time til now? History covers only a fairly small part of this total spectrum. Over that small part, human nature has been highly consistent, if we may judge by the kinds of questions that human beings seem universally and perennially to ask (we can tell this from their art, their literature, their myths and legends, etc.) For instance, justice and morality as living issues go back at least to the second millennium B.C., i.e., to the First Intermediate Period (Egypt), with an anonymous inscription called "Dispute of a Man, Who Is Contemplating Suicide, with His Soul."
My theory is that morality is premised on human nature; if the nature changes, so does everything else. I keep testing the theory. So far, it has held up well. I am always prepared to entertain new evidence to further test it.
But dear PH, your "speculation" (above) is a fairy story, based on what you want to see, not an argument, based on what actually is. best, bb.