In earlier posts I have argued against allowing morality to play a role in the interactions of states, or in politics within states, or, in general, in any situation in which it is reasonably possible to think and make rational decisions. I have done so because I consider morality a fundamentally emotional phenomenon. It would not exist absent emotional responses that themselves exist because they evolved. If so, they must have evolved at a time bearing no resemblance to the present because they were useful in regulating interactions within groups and between small groups bearing no resemblance to modern states, political organizations, or other large groups of human beings. There is no reason to assume that they will function as well in regulating the interactions between the large human organizations that are a very recent phenomenon, at least as far as evolution is concerned. There is good reason, based on ample historical precedent, for the claim that attempting to apply them in that way is downright dangerous.
The above does not in any way imply, however, that we should strive to be amoral, or Machiavellian schemers, or moral relativists in our day to day interactions with other individuals. You might say that, at that level, morality is the only game in town. We simply lack the intelligence to to come up with reason-based solutions to all the complex problems that arise in our relationships with others on the fly. To the extent that we make rational decisions at that level at all (or at least feel like we are making rational decisions if you believe Jonathan Haidt), they are generally decisions that implement what our moral emotions prompt us to do. In a word, as far as interactions between individuals are concerned, morality wins by default. The best we can do is attempt to come up with a system of morality that is as simple as possible, enables us to get along with each other reasonably well, and accommodates our behavioral predispositions as they really are rather than as we want them to be.
And what of the moral relativists? I suspect the number of us who really fit that description is vanishingly small. We’re not programmed to act that way. If anyone did, they would probably regret it. Mother Nature would have been remiss if she had come up with moral beings lacking an acute ability to detect and deal with cheaters.
