Philosophy is dead. More specifically, I should say, that branch of philosophy which deals with ethics and morality. And in fact, I presume it always was.
Now I readily admit, this is not a premise I believe to be absolute (at this point) - merely an hypothesis. But the more I think about it, I'm inclined to believe that our actions are determined more by our genetic make-up than our 'beliefs'. And to take it further - I believe that our very 'beliefs' are dictated by our genetics as well.
I have conjectured before, that the very evolution of the human race was dependent on our intellect - the ability to make tools, etc... But certainly it goes beyond this. Humans also learned to survive by living in packs - societies. Obviously, those humans which helped preserve the pack were more advantageous than those who did not. Through the natural course of evolution, ethics and morality were not matters of "right and wrong" - but were instead matters of survival. This was no unique characteristic in nature; plenty of other species survived in the same manner. But humans did develop a unique characteristic later - complex thought. This of course led to numerous new developments, the ability to reason, language, etc... But for the purpose of this discussion, the most important development was the concept of "I" - the awareness of one's self.
I'd love to explore the psychological impact of this - but, again, for the purpose of this discussion we will leap forward a bit. From our ability to reason, and our understanding of our self came that wonderful notion of "free will". Now certainly, this concept was not formalized until many years later with the advent of true philosophical thought - but the notions of "choice" existed none-the-less. And so it was that man slowly began to believe that his choices were his own.
Now, let's shift gears for a moment. If you look at most laws today, you will find that the largest majority of them are based on the actions of a few - not the majority. In fact, in most cases, the majority dictates that "their ways" are the accepted ways (majority rules). Now - look closely at philosophy and religion. Is it any different? It occurs to me that devices are little more than means by which we rationalize the actions of the majority and condemn the actions of the few. In short - the majority do not act according to our accepted beliefs - but instead our beliefs are a direct result of our genetic predisposition to act in the interest of society.
To be continued....
