Nature is amoral, why would you assume nature has any morality to bestow...

Ah, a tricky one. So let's rephrase it. In nature humans as well as other animals are known to commonly behave in ways that we humans would judge as moral. And this behavior not only transcends education, culture, and religious belief among humans, but it also transcends species in some cases.

So perhaps it's natural to behave in a way that we'd regard as moral -- even if the idea of moral vs immoral is a purely human judgement?

In other words, nature IS moral. It just doesn't know it!

Boagie,

I make no case for nature producing behavior that corresponds identically to human ideals of morality.

My point is that morality is a judgement. And it so happens that the behaviors we judge as morally good are often those that we do anyway -- like compassionate things.

And it sure stands to reason that we would evolve to socially judge things as good if they're to our advantage, as morally good things usually are.

Thus, the moral behavior is largely innate because it is advantageous, and the moral judgement has arisen to reward this advantageous behavior.

All society does really is protect you from people doing some things deemed wrong. But when it comes down to it you might have to do some of that, then it is no longer beneficial to follow the contract of society so to speak

In other words, nature IS moral. It just doesn't know it!

I imagine you said this for more of a lark than for profundity, but this is a remarkably self-centered way of looking at it. Unfortunately it is the way most of our species look at nature.

The apparent fact of the matter is, however, that morality does not revolve around what we think to be moral, (even if we perfected some Kantian rational morality) but what nature programs into our social behavior. The morality of nature is certainly not coincidental, and should it so deem, nature could have changed what is "moral" altogether.

A lot of morality and/or ethics might be understood this way, as the biological extension of ones self interest. Do you think it has this universal application across the board?

but religious morality not at all because it is in opposition with the survival instincts and behaviors such as sex, material wealth, greed, violence etc.

I imagine you said this for more of a lark than for profundity

but this is a remarkably self-centered way of looking at it. Unfortunately it is the way most of our species look at nature.

The apparent fact of the matter is, however, that morality does not revolve around what we think to be moral

The morality of nature is certainly not coincidental, and should it so deem, nature could have changed what is "moral" altogether.

Mr. Fight the Power,

It will be interesting to hear something further along this line Mr. Fight the Power. I have not found in the past that I often disageed with you. You make it sound however as though nature had intend something, that nature has a consciousness, admittedly certain behaviour were selected out, and nature undoubtedly give us the mental prowess to make evaluations/ judgements through selection. Morality is quite a meaningful concept, obviously it could only, like all other meanings, be the property of a conscious subject. I have heard something of this nature in the past that somehow there is an objective morality--a naturalized epistemology. I did not understand it then, and I do not understand it now, perhaps as this dialogue moves along however, I will see the errors of my ways.