Just because he says it doesn't make it true.

P.S.--I bet you read the astrology column, too.

"GMO is bad too." Based on what? Some "Frankenfoods" argument? Virtually every food you eat has been modified by humans over the course of agriculture.

One thing that I left out of the last post is probably the most important question in ethics. Why should we do good things for others?

You addressed this issue like this: "Why? Exactly why should I want to alleviate hunger in people I don’t know?" I hope that my explanation may change your mind somewhat.

Ethics has been a topic for as long as people have existed; a good, though partial, defintion of ethics could be "theories, rules and explanations that are concerned with the way people interact". People have always looked for the bases of ethics, they've looked for the rules that are going to help them deal with others. The earliest ethical codes are religious, or what we would call religious, and often have to do with a deity telling them to us. Other people, disenchanted with the mandates of organized religion have looked for other bases; Kant had the categorical imperative, Schopenhauer had metaphysical compassion, Bentham used the greatest happiness principle, etc.

The constant among the vast majority is that being a good person is good, being a bad person is bad. This sounds like tautological silliness but it lets us see that humans have always valued what they call good behavior. Typically the traits of being a good person are the same: kindness, generosity, loyalty, etc. Even in instances when we find people blurring ethical lines (a good Nazi was one that killed Jews), the good behaviors are still good in a certain context (a good Nazi was kind and loyal to other good Nazis). This shows that are ethical notions are very similar to those of others that lead very different lives: the details and customs frequently vary.

So what is the origin of our ethical notions? I think that recent scientific work can offer us an understanding of the origin: science can replace gods, confusing metaphysics, and tautoligical silliness. This is, by the way, the basis for ethics that Peter Singer uses, but maybe with variations. The theory, most notably espoused by Steven Pinker, suggests that we are genetically wired for ethical notions (I've noticed a few people among the posts mention this genetic source too). It is complicated and I'll try to be brief so there will be a lot that unfortunately is left out of what follows. We evolved ethical notions through a process called reciprocal altruism. In this, we reward good behavior (behavior that we like) and punish bad behavior. The people who are better at cooperating did better than the people who couldn't cooperate: the cooperators then produced more offspring and the genetic code held that cooperation gene. Reciprocal altruism is even more important in looking at how we treat others every day. Often we try to show our disapproval to others for behavior that we don't like -- behavior that doesn't seem like it will help us replicate our genes in more offspring.

The genetic code explanation is also important for understanding some of Singer's mistakes and confusions. Our genes compel us to do good things for people with similar genes: the more similar, the harder we try. This is why our mothers will always win out over strangers, and our friends will win out over people in some foreign nation. Of course, as the world gets smaller and smaller (Singer's expanding circle), we may be finding that more and more of our genetic traits are also present in others in distant lands, or that many of them are present in dogs or chickens. Speciesism is easily understood in these terms (though it also makes it hard for me to agree with Singer in this matter). We see that we have a good reason for liking humans much more than animals, especially humans that are connected to us. And we also see that we enjoy being good to others because our genes compel us to be good to those with similar genes. This is one reason why many people have a feeling of satisfaction after being kind or generous. Our brains, formed by our genes, want us to know that we did the right thing

So, as a response to your question of why you should be ethical: you can do whatever you want. You don't have to be kind or generous. I might tell you that you should be, because I would like to live in a world of kindness and generosity -- I think that I would fare better in that world, and that others (with similar genetic codes) would fare better as well. Maybe your behavior, which could be called selfishness, would go unpunished by others and you would succeed and have endless numbers of children. Maybe your behavior would get you hated and reviled. What I think is more likely is this: given the chance to help another person in trouble, I think that you would. If you didn't, somebody else probably would.

I cannot reply with extensive quotation as this would violate the 1,000 word limit, so if I miss something important, please forgive me and point it out.

Asking why I would want to alleviate hunger in people I don't know, and doing good for others are not mutually exclusive.

It doesn't do anyone who is hungry any good to simply alleviate his or her hunger, because it does not address the underlying reason for that hunger.

Moral values are not genetic, or if they are can be overriden by cultural norms. Norms that others may find reprehensible, such as Honor killings of female relatives. Such constants do not exist is human behavior. Killing is not always bad, loyalty is not always good. Kindness can be weakness and generosity foolishness.

One thing that humans have is altruism. We are not vampire bats that or primates that are limited to reciprocal altruism. We can and do help those when it brings no direct benefit to ourselves. It's a noble trait, but how it is implemented differs greatly among cultures.

Ethical behavior does not require that I seek out unknown people to help. In fact, I'd argue that this represents unethical behavior, because it is taking on a parental or colonial role, a role not granted to us.

If I see a person in trouble, I'll help, because that person is no longer unknown to me. I don't do so because I expect to be rewarded or receive aid from others later. I do it for essentially selfish reasons, because it makes me feel better about myself.

Where I draw the line is assuming that I am somehow superior to others and need to save them from themselves. It is not my duty, nor the duty of countries to try and save everyone from hunger or suffering. How much hunger was there in Africa before colonization? Less than there is now. Why, because people wanted to alleviate hunger and bring God to the heathens and enlightenment to those in darkness, and other equally silly reasons. It did and does Africa no good.