Morality is human herd behaviour as applied to individuals. Each of us behaves the way the group expects, Not doing so is immoral.
I think this is largely right. But, I would alter that last part: "Not doing so might be considered immoral, at first. But, if the consequences ended up being good, it will change the group's mind."
Herd behaviour is an evolutionary phenomenon.
Any definition of morality that does not take account of evolution is incomplete. And probably pointless.
I wholeheartedly agree with that!!
Moral absolutes certainly exist for humans and groups of humans, where one person constitutes the minimum group size.
While similar absolutes may exist for other animals, that is a result of similar properties of groups and has nothing to do with morality itself.
There might be absolute core sources of morality (from our evolutionary inheritance). But, they are not necessarily "absolute" once they bubble up to the societal level. Societies do have the opportunity to warp and change their behaviors, even away from previously natural absolutes, if doing so ends up helping everyone even more.
In fact, morality varies very little. Practically every group in existence, and most in the past would agree very closely on what is moral. Eating yourself is not. Slaughtering large numbers of children is not. Doing what you are told, is. That such behavioural rules are in fact common to most herd animals in rudimentary forms, as well as repeated across practically all human cultures, points strongly to a genetic origin.
It is often helpful to separate moral concepts into two categories: Proximate details, and Ultimate causes.
Across human societies, there might be a great variety in how the proximate details of moral codes are formed: Creating the ILLUSION that there is a wide variety of moral values out there.
However, when studied carefully, we find there are a LOT more universals hidden within that variety, than would first meet the eye. This, in theory, is because these moral systems have their roots in the same ultimate causes.
But a meta question can always be asked. Just because every horse, chimp and human agrees that behaviour X is the right thing to do, does that mean that at a higher level it is still right?
That is probably a meaningless question, but one beloved of moral philosophers everywhen.
I think, in the long run, we have no control over it. (At least in theory.) Anyone who argues against where our natural morality is leading us, will eventually be tossed aside, while everyone else goes with that flow. The flow can only be rerouted if you can demonstrate that the new route is better.
Yet, when the same people turn their attention to something far more complicated and contentious like morality then suddenly pronouncements are made with strident and dogmatic certainty.
I, for one, try to avoid the language of dogmatic certainty.
But evolution also appears to have placed in us certain behavioural dispositions such as infidelity in men, caring for kin above strangers and various other things that we may want to apply our reasoning to to determine whether or not it is right to do those things.
Morality only begins with evolution. It can warp and change according to societal needs. Theoretically, these needs can be predicted and anticipated based on population size, environmental factors, and perhaps other empirically measurable factors.
Morality seems to be more of an emergent system, than a natural process itself.
You then give a moral relativist idea that suggests that going along with the herd is the right thing to do and not doing so is immoral.
I already noted above, that societies can accept deviation from the herd, if that deviation proves to be in everyone's best interests. (Though, it often takes time to recognize that. And, in the meantime you might be considered "immoral" by accident.)
For an example of intractability, very few people say "I'm okay with you having abortions if you want one, but I am against."
I think most Pro Choice people say this.
In any case, there ARE objective ways to resolve issues of abortions, slavery, voting rights, honor killing, burka wearing, circumcision, polygamy, etc. The more science says about their pros can cons, and under what circumstances those pros and cons appear, the more that will influence our morality.
In the rare event of a tie: If an issue proves to be of no moral relevance, what-so-ever; then it will eventually cease to be a moral issue in the future, even if it looks like one, now. And, will merely be an issue of personal preference. (I cannot think of a good example of this, yet, though.)
