[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a good thing we, as an intelligent species, realized that we don't really like the idea of someone stronger coming by and "taking us down," so we apply social consequence to restrict the behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that human history is so violent, both on a micro and a macro level should be evidence that "applying social consequence" is not nearly effective enough to stop such things.
I used to fight in middle school, not by choice, but because I'd get jumped by kids with too much testosterone. There were no negative "social consequences" for these kids and I couldn't change that fact if I wanted to.

[ QUOTE ]
But it stems from a belief that has tangible merit. That taking people down because you're physically stronger is not productive for a society of human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it may be productive for a particular physically stronger individual.

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if people are selfish if people desire to be selfish. If the action is a problem, nature will correct it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain what you mean by "problem" and by "nature will correct it". Example?

[ QUOTE ]
If you agree that bias explains why people hold slightly different ethical codes, then you must agree there is some ethical core that, in the absence of bias, all humans would share.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is correct. Is there a core of culinary preference that all humans would share without bias? We all have slightly different tastes and following this logic would lead to the conclusion that there is a "correct" sense of taste when it comes to food. Similarly with art, music and film.

[ QUOTE ]
"Morals" require underlying logic. They are either good for tangible reasons, or they die out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example of a moral and a tangible reason why it's "good"?