[gore3000]

I get so tired of going over this with you over and over--specific morals are not built in. The sentimental prediliction for morals built into humans can be easily accounted for by evolutionary forces, quite similar to those that produced familial love, as tribal altruism, which is common in large social mammals, and has obvious acute survival value for our DNA.

Well, the problem I have with that explanation is that conscience does not seem to me to be anything like a sentiment. The bonding between mother and child has no doubt some physical support. However conscience is entirely a thought process. It also seems to get 'turned on' and off even by the same individuals at different times. Does not seem to me that if it was a material imperative that it could be done this way.

[donh]

Well, the problem I have with that explanation is that conscience does not seem to me to be anything like a sentiment. The bonding between mother and child has no doubt some physical support.

Mothers chemically bond to children because certain physical triggers--the first touch, the first cry, the first view of the face--invoke chemical changes that flood the body with enzymes copied off the DNA strands.

Similar chemical changes occur, in humans especially, regarding brother-love, filial devotion and respect, tribal honor and duty. Parallel developments in other large chordates are easy to enumerate, and to explain in terms of DNA optimizing its investments in the future. Altruism pays, because altruism gets more of your tribe's DNA into the future, and a healthy tribe is better at procuring your DNA than you alone are.

However conscience is entirely a thought process.

Obviously not. Merely thinking that you should, in theory, be altruist, fails the fallacy of the commons test. Rational self-interest dictates hypocracy. Your DNA will do best if you persuade everyone else to be moral, and that you are moral, when you are not. We buy altruistic arguments because we are inclined to--we have the sentiment for it. Not because they are outstandingly pursuasive. If we relied on logical pursuasion to institute morals, they, and probably we as well, would have died off long ago.

It also seems to get 'turned on' and off even by the same individuals at different times. Does not seem to me that if it was a material imperative that it could be done this way.

Ever the wabbling hand returns to the fire.

Your emotive genes do not lock you into anything. They give you an inclination. They are not iron God's of the universe. All DNA can do is provide capacity--it cannot make you use it. Even mother love is a choice, among chordates--there are many examples were it is intentionally sidelined. In hard times, your pussy cat chooses to eat more of her young as they emerge, for obviously good reasons, in a creature which invests considerable resources in raising fry.