In article <3AD21E90.283FA10E@hotmail.com>, Dennis Kikendall

<denniskik@hotmail.com> wrote:

> One of the most famous cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United

> States involved two men and a boy drifting for days in a lifeboat. The

> men decided that it was better to kill the boy than for all three to die

> for lack of water. Evidence produced in court demonstrated that had

> they not killed the boy all three indeed would have died. The court

> found the two men guilty of murder.

>

> Evolution, instinctive reaction, self-preservation and survival of the

> fittest dictate that the boy should have been killed. Indeed, in the

> animal kingdom it would have been accepted. Why did humans as evolved

> animals decide it was wrong. Nothing in the physical world, no

> electrical and/or chemical signals in cerebral gray matter would come to

> that conclusion. Just curious as to where you think this justice comes

> from ?

Justice is a cultural artifact. Not all human cultures would have found

those two men guilty of murder.

Was it wrong from a biological sense for that kid to die?

Of *course* not - the processes of biology don't have anything to do

with morals or justice or culture or any of that - they just *are*. Was

it wrong in my mind for that kid to be murdered? The jury certainly

thought so - that's because humans are no longer tied to their

instincts; instincts get in the way when abstract thought becomes

possible. Instead we evolved language and culture. The case above was

decided on the basis of cultural standards. It has nothing to do with

biological evolutionary processes, except in the sense that humans have

evolved to the point of having cultural standards.

What you seem to be asking is, "why do all human cultures have a bias

against at least some forms of murder?"

That's because getting along with your peers is easier and less work

than not getting along with them; that's how enlightened self-interest

works.