I think we can all agree that we are all social beings. This means that as a condition of survival we have evolved certain social habits that are general to the human condition. On the flip side of this is the fact that we also possess an individual ego. Here is what is often but not always a conflict of interests best illustrated in game theory. On the one hand we have what for most of us is the dominant driving force, the individual needs, our ego. This asks that we do things that are directly beneficial to ourselves. On the other hand is the needs of the social construct. The social construct often requires a suspension of personal gratification. These are most often long term benefits that don't have a direct reward for our egos. No man is an island, with a few extraordinary exceptions, but most people desire to be free independent actors. It could be argued that this individualism has been exacerbated by the culture of capitalism but that's probably another thread. The point being that the individual ego has probably always existed as a part of the human condition.
Morality arises directly from this synthesis of the individual ego and the requirements of the social construct. If we were indeed each an island in the world with no need to form relationships with others there would be no basis for morality as we know it. It is in turn from the individual ego that the great arguments on ethics arises. The dominantly social creatures with minimal individual egos likewise probably have no need to argue about ethics. Imagine ants or the Borg discussing ethical issues.
If we accept this then it means that morality is not unique to humans. Social creatures with that possess individual egos would likewise possess morality. We could think of many examples where this would be applicable.
What do you think.

But before we reflect about Ants and Bees, your consideration of the human Egoist condition must be attached to the motivation of literally 'social beings' to desire Knowledge and a coomon means to understand each other through a level construct for communication, method, and, yes, anyway what you referred to as the common empirical Ego.

what came first: the Praxis of our Ego's driving force for heartful work and toil for providing the Bacon or the imperialism of exchanging our commonwealth (as it were), OR the Science observing the nature of the fellowman and also the animals: yes, you wanted Bees and Ants.

Trust.

noble brown wrote:
I think we can all agree that we are all social beings. This means that as a condition of survival we have evolved certain social habits that are general to the human condition. On the flip side of this is the fact that we also possess an individual ego. Here is what is often but not always a conflict of interests best illustrated in game theory. On the one hand we have what for most of us is the dominant driving force, the individual needs, our ego. This asks that we do things that are directly beneficial to ourselves. On the other hand is the needs of the social construct. The social construct often requires a suspension of personal gratification. These are most often long term benefits that don't have a direct reward for our egos. No man is an island, with a few extraordinary exceptions, but most people desire to be free independent actors. It could be argued that this individualism has been exacerbated by the culture of capitalism but that's probably another thread. The point being that the individual ego has probably always existed as a part of the human condition.
Morality arises directly from this synthesis of the individual ego and the requirements of the social construct. If we were indeed each an island in the world with no need to form relationships with others there would be no basis for morality as we know it. It is in turn from the individual ego that the great arguments on ethics arises. The dominantly social creatures with minimal individual egos likewise probably have no need to argue about ethics. Imagine ants or the Borg discussing ethical issues.
If we accept this then it means that morality is not unique to humans. Social creatures with that possess individual egos would likewise possess morality. We could think of many examples where this would be applicable.
What do you think.

I must both agree and disagree with your analysis. On agreement, it is self-evident that we do possess both an egoistic, ephemeral and a sense of social welfare also. However, I disagree with your contention that their is a contradiction between the ego and social construct, for speaking of evolution now, we have evolved both a self-interest for our individual self-preservation and social interest to facilitate our survival on a level that we could not comprehend individually.

That said, it seems clear to me that the social construct itself is built upon self-interest, for it is in the individuals interest to work in consort to achieve what he cannot do alone. All this fits in with Darwin's survival of the fittest as does the development of capitalism but as you said, that is for another post.

Finally, I disagree that it follows from your argument that "Ants and Bees" have a sense of morality. This is because such creatures as you mentioned that work purely towards what can be recognised in the loose sense of their survival and productivity as the common good, do not possess an individual ego, without which there can be no reflection on the morality of their actions. For it is the case that a moral sense is present in humans because without it, there would be no drive for a social good. In short, morality is a means of the mind to ensure that we feel a compulsion to cooperate with one another.

creativesoul wrote:
Trust.

The most important word.
That is the one note Kant uses to connect
individual morality to Ethics and society.
The "individual of good will".

Yes, agree with you almost completely. I wasn't inferring that ants and bees had a sense of morality. In fact, I was trying to say that social beings require an individual ego in order to possess a sense of morality, which basically what you are saying. The one thing I must say at this point is that we aren't sure exactly whether the “super-organisms” in fact do not possess any sense of individualism, however, I believe it safe to say that if they do it is relatively non-existent.
Also, my contention was not that there existed as fundamental conflict of interests between the two only that there is a contemporary culturally manufactured conflict of interests between the two. I, indeed see it as you do, that the social construct did in fact derive from self interest.
The whole purpose of this thread was to see if logic would allow us to deduce that morality is not unique to humans, and more importantly, what real world implications does this offer in re to improving our world. It seems imperative that we begin to balance our world out through our knowledge and experience cause only in that balance, that Golden Mean, can we begin to fully understand, appreciate and work w/ the world around us instead of against it.