Not "Bison" as a whole, but rather individual bison do that because they are "programmed" to do so, each in their own way. In that, they are like people, who also do what they do because (since intellect is just high level programming), they are "programmed", each in their own way, to do so. And this programming (in humans or bison) is the basis for all behavior, including building rocketships and going on murderous rampages.morriswalters wrote:Then you have turned your whole argument upside down. Bison act as they do because they are programmed to do so.
I also agree that the relevent difference between bison and humans is intellectual capacity, which allows for more complex behavior, and better developed morals.
I also agree that morals allow us to live together in harmony. Questions such as the burning building one I posed above may just be a side-effect of the driving force: "do I want to live with people who think this way?" (or put in the meme-propagative form, "how do I want people I live with to behave?")
I agree that evolutionary forces in social animals may well be what gave rise to morals in the first place, and as such, the origins of morals could well be considered objective. The existence of morals could also be considered objective by the same reasoning. I'll buy that.
Some moral systems (depending on the society and circumstances in which they are implemented) may well advance peace and prosperity and help humanity continue better than others. Even objectively better (once you select a measure: number of humans? Diversity of humanity? Number of planets subjugated?... but now you have to subjectively pick a measure, which throws mustard into the whole thing).
I don't think that "the only problem that counts" is to continue humanity for as long as possible. But that's also a subjective opinion.
The thing about it is that "objectively better at..." and "objectively better period." are two different kinds of things. Showing the first does not imply the second.
That's where we differ.