jennyp: Your comment has is really just making a case for a utilitarian approach to morality -- it boils down to a percieved optimization of survival chances, but does not make any judgement about the possibility different approaches, which might allow an individual to attempt to optimize his chances using different rules. Put another way, you've assumed that your desire to remain alive is a moral requirement on me -- even if it suits my purposes to kill you.I say it has to place the same moral requirement on you. A "morality" is a set of principles to guide one's behavior. It can't be considered a moral code if its goals are defeated when it's applied consistently as a principle. A moral code that says it's OK to kill someone any time it'll give you some kind of immediate gain - if applied consistently as a code - would destroy civilization. By any reasonable standard that moral code must be a failure.
I hope you see that your comment is filled with unwarranted assumptions. I'll sketch them out, and perhaps you can think through the details for yourself.
A "morality" is a set of principles to guide one's behavior. It can't be considered a moral code if its goals are defeated when it's applied consistently as a principle.
You're assuming that a "moral code" is consistent and unchanging; i.e., it has more to it than doing "whatever works for now." Given that your approach is observably not the case in nature, why must we assume it to be always true for humans?
A moral code that says it's OK to kill someone any time it'll give you some kind of immediate gain
You've gone too far when you say "any time". I think you'd agree that there are certainly times when killing a person will provide both short- and long-term gains. This might be self-defense, or it may be a palace coup which allows me to take the throne, followed by my long and happy reign. By what standard could you claim that my actions were either justified or wrong?
- if applied consistently as a code - would destroy civilization.
You're assuming that "civilization" is a moral good. From a utilitarian perspective, I suppose it is. But the boundaries of "civilization" are very broad, and within it lie long-lived and successfuls cultures such as Egypt, Rome, and many others, which thrived on the judicious application of deadly force.
By any reasonable standard that moral code must be a failure.
Before I'd agree with this, you'd first need to define a "reasonable standard." Any reasonable standard you provide, must be able to explain why humans are not subject to the rules that govern the rest of nature, including our relationship with other species (which we kill for any number of self-serving reasons).