As group members (and we all possess that valuable advantage) is it occasionally appropriate to act so that we feel happy at another's expense? Does the interest of the group member ever conflict with the interest of the group? Is there a category of actions which can be described as "good" and another totally-separate, conflicting category which we must describe as "moral". It is my firm conviction that the answer to each of those questions is a resounding "NO". What sets the scene for our discussion is the observation that people who are members of a fully inter- dependent, co-operating group of specialists fare far better in terms of getting their appetites satisfied than individuals acting alone. Imagine having to sow, tend and reap your own crops, herd your own stock animals, make your own clay bricks and build your own house with them, quarry the slate and cut the timber for its for its roof, not to mention being obliged to design and build your own computer; the list is endless. Jack of all trades, master of none. Your life would be one long round of back-breaking drudgery from dawn to dusk.
Being heir to the incalculable advantage of membership of a cooperating, specialising group ensures that it is not. It is for this reason that no effort must be spared and no duty shirked in supporting and sustaining the group. Some groups fare better than others depending in part upon the quality of the contributions of individual members. While analysing the activity of group members in order to discover the best ways of collectively satisfying their appetites, the concept of an ideal group member has evolved. Their attributes have been defined to become the ideal criteria by which other members are measured, urged to conform to and perhaps even selected by. For a group to work well it has been discovered long ago that the ideal group member must not lie, cheat or steal etc. He will be punctual, resourceful and reliable etc. His word will be his bond. The most efficient group members have been found to be mutually trustworthy and able to rely absolutely on one another's co-operation in the specialised task allotted to them.
In the ideal group, bonds of mutual trust and respect will arise. What each man earns will be protected by all. What each owns will be safeguarded by all. An unwritten contract will have been established which guarantees each participating group member a fair share of the results of his efforts and a fair allocation of the resources of the group, otherwise the incentive to act together would be weakened and ultimately destroyed. Over many centuries, and probably through bitter experience, examples of fairly safe generalities defining attributes beneficial to group performance have been derived pragmatically and designated as virtues. In this manner virtues, morals and even a system of law has been developed. Each situation has been analysed to find the best way to act in order to maximise the happiness of individuals in the group. This is why monogamy has been found to be good for one society while polygamy is better for another. What produces most happiness in one set of circumstances has been found not to be suitable in another set. However there are not many exceptions to rules like, "do not murder."
Duties and responsibilities will be gladly shouldered by individuals in order to conserve the priceless advantage conferred by group membership. The unquestionable advantage of group membership in the satisfaction of appetite will give moral (group) considerations absolute precedence over the merely good (individual) ones. Saying that raises the question of whether the word "good" has any separate meaning at all. Surely it is true to say that all acts must be moral ones because no one can ever behave so that his actions effect himself alone. Such is the enormous value of group membership that in every case, the interest or survival of the group will take precedence over the interest or survival of the individual group member; because by contributing to the specialised, cooperative group, the individual can so much more easily achieve his goals and be that much happier.
Let me offer a practical example of what I mean. Imagine belonging to a ancient hunter-gatherer group. I plan a hunt in which my companion promises to be at point A to where I will drive a buck for him to spear. If he promises to be at A while all along intending to stay in bed with his mate, my efforts in the hunt will be in vain. We will both go hungry - we may even starve. More than that, the bonds of mutual trust and the unspoken contract of cooperation between us will be seriously weakened.
Combining together to satisfy our appetites will only work if being truthful etc. is mandatory. Considering the social constraint of not lying merely to be a personal whim will ensure that our society crumbles; just a little. Moral precepts are common sense rules which will, if adhered to, maximise our chance of happiness.
It is within the confines of the group that economic salvation lies, to such an extent that it would be perfectly feasible for an individual to make the supreme sacrifice in order to sustain the group if called upon to do so - in extreme circumstances. Doing this would ensure that his family, particularly his progeny, would be given the best chance in life. The best actions are moral ones. When members of a group forsake virtuous action then the performance of that group deteriorates until eventually there is no advantage to be gained from being part of it. In our society such a turn of events would provoke social unrest, then riots and ultimately revolution.