Hitler

No, quite the opposite; the concept of "Morality" is to all evidence a uniquely human construct, it appears only humans have the capacity to recognize and act on moral precepts. As mentioned, that is a signal differentiation between humans and the rest of the planet's biomass.

No, I am saying that which does not " ... simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contribute to that which is "necessary to the survival of any species renders any such choice immoral."

I can see that statement might benefit from a bit of disambiguation. Perhaps augmenting the word "survival" with the phrase "and overall benefit" and replacing the phrase "any species" with the phrase "the entire community of species" might serve more clearly to convey my intended meaning. Does " ... simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contribute to that which is necessary to the survival and overall benefit of the entire community of species renders any such choice immoral" work better for you?

Certainly, if we are concerned about the perpetuation of the species, then we shouldn't be encouraging young women of child-bearing years to risk their lives saving old women who can no longer reproduce. Indeed, far from being a praiseworthy, I'd think that, under your version of morality, the young woman's act should be condemned as immoral. Is that right?

Perhaps, fm, what we got going on here is some wierd sorta corrolary to Godwin's Law [Laughing]
__________

Morality - as I understand most people view it - has to do with absolute "good" and "bad" (while taking human emotions into consideration as well), whether that does or does not coincide with the perpetuation aspect. That is also your view, joefromchicago, correct?

stop being so damn Darwinian. Conveying an added benefit to the species (meaning humans only) may mean something else entirely if the 80 year old was some cultural icon like Mary Leakey or Mother Theresa.

then shouldn't we be identifying that quality, which is shared by everyone, as the true standard for morality?

Joe, simply passing genes to future generations - breeding successfully - does not make the cut when one considers in total that which simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contributes to that which is necessary to the survival and overall benefit of the species...

Dont start changing the premise. A benefit to the survivability of the human species transcends mere fecundity.That was my only point .

Finally, it should be remembered the genetics of specific individuals are of far less significance to genetic transfer than are the shared genetics of entire populations. Given a sufficiently large population, 20-year-olds are relatively expendable in the interest of real or perceived benefit to the subject population; that's a big part of why armies are full of 'em :wink:

In other words, you'd encourage the young woman to rescue her elder because you consider what she is doing to be "good," not because she is conferring some benefit to the survival of the species.