I don't disagree, but with a caveat that amounts to two single letters: People tend to do what is basically good for their collective group. At best, other groups are useful. A lot of the time, other groups don't matter. At worst, they are dangerous threats that must be defended against or even attacked preemptively. Societies exist because of enlightened self interest like that. This is not a condemnation -- I view it as a given, and morally neutral... the "instinct" you refer to. In my understanding of things, it is actually this -- far more, and far more often -- than fundamental good will that has carried us this far, for this long. And yes, I'll admit: I think "morally neutral" is where most people tend to fall in the spectrum. Who is @theadvancedapes, does he talk about stuff like this often?
I can agree with morally neutral. If you had asked me as a teenager, I would said otherwise, but I have grown--I have evolved. I can't recall seeing much from him on philosophical positions. In fact, just about everything that I have read in posts are backed up by imperical information. My assertion is that we have survived and prospered for millennia because of biological evolution--a topic for which there is no better expert in this forum than @theadvancedapes.Who is @theadvancedapes, does he talk about stuff like this often?