A good kind of religion?

[ImpaledSkier]

well, with kidney transplants there is the genetic factor. It being better for someone to have a kidney from one of their closest relatives, so that the kidney won't be rejected in the new body.

Obviously. I think we all understand tissue rejection issues here, but people can accept from perfect strangers. It's what makes heart and other organ transplants possible. Usually family members don't donate hearts to other family members...unless that car crash is extremely well-timed.

I'm glad you understand my point, but I don't see the benefit of donating to a perfect stranger over family members. It's still one life. You're family member is a stranger to someone else.

[Whitney]

I don't think "loyalty" is the right term for the source of morality.  I think it stems from sympathy, the ability to impress upon ourselves the suffering we see in others, and the ability to feel joy when helping others.

That is the true source of our morality.

I think so too.  We can spend all day discussing purely rational reasons for why someone should act morally.  But when it boils down to situations where you could easily get away with doing something wrong what keeps you from doing it is empathy.

[McQ]

well, with kidney transplants there is the genetic factor. It being better for someone to have a kidney from one of their closest relatives, so that the kidney won't be rejected in the new body. But you do bring up a good point, perhaps we should donate our kidneys to strangers, I realize this is a tall order, but it can still be an ideal.

It's not that important that the donor and recipient be related. HLA matching is what you want to look at (matching specific antigens), regardless of family relation. Antirejection meds help with imperfect matches as well.

But that is veering off of the subject! LOL!

Good discussion on morals, empathy, and social interaction.

[Mark_W]

impaledskier, when you say "... I don't see the benefit of donating to a perfect stranger over family members."...I don't either, this is not what I was originally advocating. I am simply saying that the ideal is to donate to whoever needs one, regardless of who they are, family or not.

laetusatheos, I also agree that sympathy or compassion would be better terms to use in this case than loyalty. However we do need the rational outlook on what we should do; and we shouldn't contradict ourselves in the theoretical, if we do then, at best, we will fall shorter of what we will do in practice, or at worst, do the completely wrong thing, thinking it is the moral decision.

[Scrybe]

I am simply saying that the ideal is to donate to whoever needs one, regardless of who they are, family or not.

Ah, I think this is the key to understanding "morals".  The key is in ideals.  What are they, and why are they?   And more importantly: What happens when they change?  The whole concept of the ideal is placing a target we can all shoot for, right?  We know few, if any will achieve it, but it's important for maintaining general morality.  As an example, let's look at the ideal of marriage.  This ideal would seem to go against a Darwinian model of males knocking up as many females as possible.  Yet the structure of an unbroken home provides invaluable social stability.  Not all marriages end up as the ideal, and our current climate of make-your-own-morality and don't-be-ashamed-of-anything has led us to denigrate the marriage ideal.  

Hrm… just some thoughts.