It is in our nature to care this way. But tribalism is also in our nature and the capacity for violence & cruelty. Hence the need to talk about, work out and persuade others of the optimal moral system which benefits all of us.
Do you see that its rational to seek facts on how to have an optimum morality if you want to be optimally moral and rational to seek facts on how best to promote your own interests if you want to do that? So when discussing morality its the former we make arguments about.
-
-
If you're asking how to make people want to be moral when they want to be selfish or how to make people want to be selfish when they want to be moral, this is a different conversation to an exchange of arguments on how to be moral. Then we're into psychology or neuroscience.
-
When we talk about whether there can be an empirical argument on a subject, this isn't answered 'no' by people not caring about the subject. Arguments about optimal morality assume all participants to care about optimal morality. Dealing with amoral people is a separate subject.
-
This would also work with any basis for an argument about morality. I know you're not making a religious argument right now but, if you were, I couldn't say it didn't work because it won't convince people who would rather be self-interested than moral. They're just not engaging.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.