Mum used to call the chicken's bum either the "pope's nose" or the "parson's nose". Also highly desired.hajrafradi wrote:I agree with you on what you wrote.Greta wrote: I'm dubious about early humans agreeing about the good life. I don't see so much agreement in other species' groups, but plenty of jockeying for position and dominance/submission rituals. Also, different tribal groups probably developed different moralities' based on the individual qualities of their leaders. Some may well have agreed on a morality that includes cannibalism, infanticide and other common behaviours of wild primates.
My own nuclear family often practiced cannibalism. So I understand where you're coming from. (We always had turkey for Thanksgiving. And since I was the youngest and my Mom's favourite, I was always given the sphincter of the roasted chickens. The best part of the animal!! Mm-mm.)
I chose very carefully "the very first human family" in my example therefore, because they woulda been made of the waters of the same gene pool with very little deviation in values and systems.
The first human family would have been a mutated genetic line we now call Australopithecus living within a larger tribe of common ancestors, presumed to be Ardipithecus ramidus.
The seeds of morality can been seen in other social species anyway. I'm not sure where it started, perhaps with mothers struggling to find a safe place to lay their eggs? The compulsion to care for one's young is odd when you think about it. Why should we? Why not eat them or leave them? Because any species* that eats or leaves their young is less likely to persist than a species that helps its young to survive to maturity.
Ironically, the amorality of natural selection has shaped morality. No doubt the situation in that sense will be similar for any advanced species. It clearly takes time for an evolving intelligent species to tame their residual fearful and savage instincts.
* aside from species that produce large litters or clutches of eggs.