There are may ways to understand what is morality, in Dorderism, morality is understood as the product of the selfishness of groups.
There are various groups or organizations in human society, such as marriage, family, company, party, race, religion, region, country, and so on. In order to survive and develop, these groups have formed many behavior rules for their individuals or subgroups, and these rules are morality. Morality gradually emerges during the evolutionary process of the group, and in turn shapes the individual's humanity and the group itself, and finally solidifies in the group culture and individual genes.
The evolution of morality may lag behind changes of the group itself and the environment; and moral rules are often too simple to apply to all situations. So seemingly moral behaviors do not necessarily benefit the group.
It is only meaningful to discuss the morality of individuals within a group, or subgroups within their parent group. Assuming there is only one creature on a planet, then its behavior is not moral or not. The group can be small, the smallest group is only two people, and mutual cooperation between two people can form morality, the marriage relationship is a typical example.
Conflicts of interest often occur between groups and individuals, which lead to people tend to view morality and personal selfishness as opposing. If there are evidences that a seemingly moral behavior is just for personal gain, then people usually no longer think that the behavior is moral, or think that its moral standards is not so high. This is why although some moralities are also influenced by the selfishness of individuals, the definition of morality should not include the selfishness of individuals.
The meaning of morality to groups is similar to the meaning of desire and human nature to individuals. All people have the desire to reproduce, and also like babies, and are afraid of beasts, those who do not have these desires and human nature were extinct. Similarly, all the primitive groups must also have formed certain moral requirements, such as "not to kill companions," "distribute food fairly," and so on. If a group does not form these moral rules, its members would not be able to cooperate effectively, and it would inevitably be eliminated in the brutal competition for existence. In essence, the pursuit of morality is only the inevitable choice for the group to maintain its own interests. It is only that human groups would inevitably form moral education mechanism, and continuously instill morality to all people, make morality sanctified, and weaken the utilitarian nature behind morality.
The statement of "the selfishness of groups" seems to be somewhat deviant at first glance, but there are several advantages to understanding morality in this way:
- It helps to break people's idealized and sanctified views on traditional morality, so that people dare to optimize and adjust the existing moral rules.
- It helps to analyze the problem of moral conflicts when individuals belong to different groups, such as the moral conflicts between the identity of company employee and social citizenship.
- In addition, it harmonizes the pursuit of morality and Dorderism, both of them encourage the pursuit of the interests of the whole society.
Since morality is only derived from the selfishness of groups, and it is not sacred at all, why should people obey moral rules?, and why should people do good things and not do bad things?
First of all, groups or other people will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior, so people's compliance with moral rules is consistent with their personal interests to a certain extent, this is undoubtedly an important reason for obeying moral rules. But in the future, when we have a prosperous life and can control our emotions and desires, we need a higher level reason to obey moral rules.
In Dynamic Order Comparison there is such a conclusion: The whole human society is more valuable than a human group, and human groups are usually more valuable than their individuals. Groups have more dynamic order than individuals, and have greater potential to generate new dynamic order. If individuals obey moral rules, it is beneficial to the whole group and can generate more dynamic order. For example, why should we be polite? Because it is beneficial to the cooperation of human groups, and cooperation is the key to efficiently generating dynamic order.
Usually, people behave more morally when they are supervised, and without external supervision, people usually reduce their moral requirements for themselves. However, from the perspective of pursuing dynamic order, we should always do the right things, no matter whether there is supervision from others.
First of all, the neural network of human brain has a characteristic that the more the area is activated, the stronger the area will be. Forming memory through repeated reading is a typical example of this characteristic. When we make a decision, regardless of whether the decision is good or bad, the neural network will faithfully reinforce the area related to this decision. When you get up the courage to do something, your neural network reinforces the areas related to bravery and strength; when you treat others viciously, your neural network reinforces the areas related to viciousness. All of our thinking and actions are insensibly shaping the neural network of our brains, and from the perspective of dynamic order, the brain is the core value of each of us. Moreover, when we encounter similar situations in the future, we will also tend to repeat the patterns of previous behaviors, so our current behaviors will also affect future behaviors.
From the perspective of dynamic order accumulation, every behavior in our lives is unique, an unique part of the dynamic order accumulation of our lives, and the history of life that has ever occurred can never be changed.
In short, immoral behavior not only damages the neural network of our brain, damages our core value, but also permanently affects the dynamic order accumulation of our lives. So whether or not we are supervised, we should always do the right thing, not only because it is good for groups, but also for creating better ourselves, and making our lives more valuable.
Morality often conflicts with personal interests, and generally speaking, the smaller the group, the more consistent its interests and personal interests, and the more consistent its moral requirements and personal interests; the larger the group, the more likely its interests conflict with personal interests, and the more likely its moral requirements and personal interests will conflict. Although this is not always the case, it does have such a tendency.
For example, whether people should join the army during the war period. The family's moral requirement is that people should take care of the family, so people should not join the army, which is in line with the personal interests. On the other side, the moral requirement of the country is that people should be loyal to the country, people should join the army, although some people will be sacrificed, but this is beneficial to the whole country.
This inconsistency between group interests and individual interests forms the core contradiction between morality and personal interests. The moral standards of a society depends largely on whether it can resolve this contradiction. To resolve this contradiction, we can use the solutions mentioned in Interest Conflict:
In fair and reasonable societies, personal interests will be more consistent with the interests of the whole society, people are more willing to comply with moral rules. If social rights can be reasonably distributed, then the contribution of individuals to society will be partially transformed into personal interests, which requires that the society must have a fair and reasonable system. Take personal taxation as an example, suppose there are two societies: One is a fair society, all taxes are used fairly and reasonably for the development of the whole society, and for the welfare of all people; the other is an authoritarian society, all taxes are used for dictator's enjoyment, not for social development. Which social citizen will be more willing to pay taxes? The answer is self-evident. Therefore, we should pursue a fair, free and democratic social system.
In safe, secure, legally sound societies, people are more willing to abandon their own interests in order to comply with moral rules. Suppose there are two societies: In one society, there is a high level of social welfare, personal wealth is well protected, and people have a strong sense of security for the future; in another society, the welfare system is imperfect, personal wealth is often exploited or even confiscated, and most people feel uneasy, and think that the future is full of uncertainty. It is inevitable that the people of the former society are more willing to sacrifice their own interests and pursue higher moral standards. Therefore, we should strive to establish a good welfare system and a fair judicial system.
Promoting people's education level and wisdom, and educating people to place importance on the interests of the whole society, which will undoubtedly help to improve people's moral standards.
Society should reward moral people in terms of social reputation and so on. So when people follow moral rules, a part of the loss of personal interests will be compensated. For example, charity behavior can bring good social reputation to people, the social reputation itself is an important and high value social resource, so it is very attractive to the rich.
Combining the above points, we can sum up a simpler principal: The more people love the society, the more they will sacrifice their own interests and pursue the interests of the whole society, and then they will become more moral. And the society worthy of the people's love should be able to achieve the above goals well, then it can well alleviate the contradiction between morality and personal interests.
Although there will be conflicts between morality and personal interests, we still should not be overly depreciate human desires and selfish behaviors. Selfishness in human nature is an inevitable product of cruel social competition, and selfish desire is the basis of human initiative and the driving force of the progress of human society. If we blindly resist selfish desire in human nature, it will easily destroy people's freedom, and hinder the development of human society.
In addition, blindly, excessively sacrificing the interests of individuals or small groups does not necessarily good for the whole society. The complexity of society causes that it is difficult to predict the long-term effect of social activities, blindly pursuing short-term group interests often results in worse long-term results, and reduces the total dynamic order accumulation.
However, the influence of social activities on individuals or small groups is relatively certain. Under the premise of ensuring fairness, the direct pursuit of individual interests is a more achievable goal. And when the interests of all individuals increase, the group interests will also increase. As long as everyone and each small group are pursuing their own interests moderately, maintain a good basic social order, the society can certainly make progress. In other words, we should pursue the emergence of group interests from individual interests.
For example, the moral rules of family need parents to dedicate themselves to raising their children, and in some societies the moral rules emphasize too much that people should work hard. If people really devote most of their time and energy to work, and neglect their children, it is very likely that the whole society will eventually become worse, because it has sacrificed the dynamic order of the future.
Therefore, we need to find the balance between group interests and personal interests, as well as the balance between morality and humanity, and everyone should have their own unique balance point. Without obviously undermining social order, we can choose our own direction between pursuing dynamic order and our humanity. Our behaviors can be selfish, so long as they are within this range, our behaviors are normal and acceptable.
Human society is complex, and people often do not realize this complexity, and fall into various moral mistakes. Common mistakes are:
- Seemingly moral behaviors do not necessarily lead to good results. For example, if people often give alms to begging children, it may lead to more children being trafficked and intentionally disabled.
- Society or groups often overemphasize the spirit of selflessness and sacrifice. This often damages the interests of individuals or small groups, but also often causes the long-term interests of society or groups to be damaged.
- Overemphasizing certain moral rules, and ignoring or even suppressing other moral rules. "Political correctness" is a typical example.
In short, the morality mistakes are various. We must objectively and fairly judge the results of moral behaviors, so that morality can really play a role in promoting social progress.
The essence of morality determines that morality should evolve along with the development of society. Otherwise, it will not match the social reality, and undermine the harmonious operation of society. Moral rules can be changed and they should be changed, we should not adhere to the old moral rules. The faster the society develops, the faster the moral rules need to be changed.
For example, when human society enters the abundance era from the scarcity era, the moral rule of "people should have a fixed traditional job" must be changed. In the future, when humans can change their genes, brain nerves, and even human nature, the moral rules need greater changes.
In the history of human development, morality has a big development trend -- from "love" to "order." The moral rules formed in primitive society are mainly about "love", their role is to maintain small groups that are based on relatives and friends, and to counter human instincts and selfish desires. With the increasing size of human groups, society becomes more and more complex, and the collaboration between strangers becomes more and more important. But it is hard for people to "love" strangers, so large-scale societies put forward higher moral requirements for people, that is, on the basis of "love", they have added "order", such as law compliance, contract spirit, integrity, punctuality, and so on. The reason is simple, because the larger the group is, the greater the importance of order to the group, and the group naturally "selfishly" requires people to obey the order.
In the evolution process of morality, for the same thing, moral rules may also shift from "love" to "order." For example, the problem of parents beating children, in the primitive society, people would just think that the parents do not love their children; but in a legalized modern society, people will not only consider whether the parents love their children, but will also consider the legal issues, "child abuse is illegal," and people may even call the police if necessary.
The potential of a society's development, depends to a large extent on its people's "order-type morality." Humanity changes much more slowly than morality. Our human nature is mainly formed in the small group life in primitive society, and has not yet evolved to adapt to the life of large groups. Therefore, there are not many characteristics related to order in our nature. The "order-type morality" is more dependent on the nurturing, so all societies should strive to cultivate the people's "order-type morality."