> Dogs and apes and all social creatures have an innate sense of morality.
Yes, but not the same morality. The point is that all morality is relative, and your example supports the thesis -- dog morality is not chimp morality, which is not human morality.
> Nature has evolved that, in humans it has created certain rather strong thoughts and feelings on the subject. So in that sense nature does care.
Absolutely false. You're imagining an intent in nature for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Your child is starving, and a dolphin is available as a food source. You have to choose which moral standard to adopt -- yours, or the dolphin's (another thinking creature). They aren't the same, indeed they absolutely conflict.
> So in terms of outcomes nature cares as well.
You really need to expel this idea -- it's quite false. Nature is morally neutral, and does not care.
possibly we shouldn't anthropomorphize nature. she hates when we do that. And it may be be creating barriers to understanding. perhaps one should substitute 'is a useful construct for understanding nature' for 'nature cares'.
I think the one thing that set me off in the original comment is that morality is a 'human invention'. A more complete picture would be that humans, dogs, and apes are a creation of nature, which has endowed them with a sense of morality. Not one that is consistent or infallible, just as your sense of balance doesn't always correctly tell you what is up and what is down, but a sense nevertheless.
In physics, referentials are relative. We don't say, let's expel the idea of referentials. There is no one absolute referential, but the concept of a referential is a useful one in a variety of contexts and worth developing. No one physical theory is final or complete, but some are more useful than others.
As your example notes, we cannot avoid acting, so thinking about the best ways to act is a useful project. Saying "it's all relative and nature is morally neutral, so I can do and justify whatever I want" is a moral choice, but not necessarily the one likely to lead to the least conflict.
Yes, but not the same morality. The point is that all morality is relative, and your example supports the thesis -- dog morality is not chimp morality, which is not human morality.
> Nature has evolved that, in humans it has created certain rather strong thoughts and feelings on the subject. So in that sense nature does care.
Absolutely false. You're imagining an intent in nature for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Your child is starving, and a dolphin is available as a food source. You have to choose which moral standard to adopt -- yours, or the dolphin's (another thinking creature). They aren't the same, indeed they absolutely conflict.
> So in terms of outcomes nature cares as well.
You really need to expel this idea -- it's quite false. Nature is morally neutral, and does not care.