If human ends are like all other biological goals they are completely predetermined by physical events and we have no choice.
Yes. And?
It is the other way round. Reason provides a basis for natural law because human nature is supernatural as well as natural.
Upon what do you base this assertion?
How do you distinguish personal reality from natural reality?
Personal reality is one particular kind of natural reality, that which involves the particular natural entities we define as persons.
Morality is not invented because it is a need regardless of whether it is perceived.
Um…okay. Where do the commas go? Because I’m not sure if you mean morality is necessary regardless of whether we notice its necessity or not; or if you mean morality is not invented through necessity (or at all, perhaps), whether we notice a need for it or not.
Empathy and sociability are neither the sole nor the dominant determinants of natural behaviour.
In the grand scheme of things, of course they’re not. But they are major determinants of the behavioural interaction of social animals such as humans, and they are also the basis of what we have come to understand as human morality. In modern times, they are also the means by which we may critique more ‘primitive’ notions of moral behaviour which might have been based upon other interests, such as the power or prestige of the ruling classes, or the superiority of one race (or sex) over another or, for that matter, the supposed desires of imaginary beings such as gods.
Morality isn’t “grafted onto us by an external force” because we can - and often do - reject it. It is based on the perception that we are not animals dominated by instinct but rational beings.
Why should such a perception (arrogant and erroneous though it may be…) be privileged as an explanation for morality over and above our perception of our own need to live together harmoniously if we are to survive and prosper? My point was not that morality is something planted in us by an outside force, but something handed down by an outside force, with a “do this or else” proviso attached - in the case of monotheistic religions, by god. People can accept or reject religion with great facility also, but at the end of the day, we cannot be completely independent. Even those who thrive upon manipulating others still need those others to manipulate. Morality exists solely as a function of the relationships between sentient beings - any codifications into sets of rules came after this fact. The fact of morality did not result from the formulation of any rules.
If the need to survive is the basis of morality it is no longer morality but selfish expediency - as opposed to cultural constructs based on spiritual truths which survive the test of time and are essential for personal fulfilment and social harmony.
Such as? After all, if survival is compromised, either on an individual or group basis, any concept of morality that does not advance survival is mere window dressing. Even the legal system, which you extol, recognises the necessary expedient of self-defence as a justification for manslaughter. Would it be better to sacrifice your own life for the needs of a petty thief who saw you as an inconvenient witness to their crime?
Conflicting interpretations demonstrate that interdependence is an insufficient basis for morality.
That being the case, what have you to say of the hundreds of conflicting religious faiths posited as bases for moral strictures? Not one of the many theologies that exist and have existed has the wherewithal, philosophically, spiritually (however that is interpreted) or historically to stake a solid claim to be truth, so why base moral decisions on any of them?
This is an excellent example of the genetic fallacy. It could be argued with greater cogency that the immoral influence of individuals, dominated by the overweening desire for power, reject religion in order to use irrational ideas to exploit human fears in order to further their own ends, devoid of empathy and social awareness.
A two-edged sword with the spiritual blade sharper than the worldly one…
Considering the truth claims of most religions, I would hazard to assert that the genetic fallacy does not apply in this case. The origins of religions are, in general, claimed to lie in the existence, pronouncements or deeds of deities and other “spiritual” beings, so the likelihood that they are man-made, and often for spurious ends, does in fact cut the ground from under them.
In any case, if you mean to imply that certain individuals, such as totalitarian dictators, drew upon irreligious ideas to impose absolute power, this argument has been refuted on many an occasion.
