Morality as Facegroups

Humans, as highly intelligent and extremely social animals are genetically programmed to learn all they can about the customs and mores of their tribe or social group as defined prehistorically by those whose faces they encountered on a daily basis. There could be no thought of violating these customs and mores, as doing so would cause banishment and a solo human was a dead human. This is the basis of conscience, not some big daddy in the sky.  

 As social groups grow beyond the tribal or village size like minded social groups will congregate geographically or in religious groups.  The religious groups may be dispersed far beyond a geographical area but at least in theory the groups maintain a consistent set of customs and mores that serve to control and unify the the local face groups. 

 A child brought up by members or a member of an identifiable social group will associate behavior that promotes the welfare of the group with "good" and that which is contrary to the welfare of the group as "bad." No matter how large the identifiable social group became the local community hall was the transmitter of the group's values.  Typically these community halls are small enough that all are at least nominally acquainted.   Ultimately it seems that compliance with face-group standards is the natural morality of humans. 

 As larger societies moved up the chain to associations of face groups, either religious or secular, commandments, laws and rules of behavior are established to define minimum standards of behavior that promote the welfare of the larger group.  These commandments, laws and rules are not to be confused with morality, as frequently these commandments, laws and rules will conflict with the imprinted sense of what is good and what is bad as it relates to the childhood face group.    

 A face group at that point may withdraw to the extent possible from the larger group.  See the Amish and other Anabaptist groups who live by their own moral standards ignoring the laws of the larger society except where there is unavoidable conflict. Or they may be forced to withdraw from the larger group as the Native Americans were.  Ostracising these groups has nothing to do with the morality of the larger society, it simply allows the larger society to work. One could make a strong case that the laws of society are by definition immoral as they force compliance with activities that may be against the face group morals of individuals within the larger society.

 The world is too big to be a face group these days but if we choose carefully there is a group of people whose customs and mores we can and do internalize. That group will look a lot like our family and close friends even when extended to people we probably will never meet.  The mores so developed may or may not be judged moral by the larger society. 

 Religious and secular associations are the traditional facilitators of face groups and define the approved social standards and mores for the group. 

 Social media is emerging as a powerful force for expanding and defining these extended face groups. In some cases a small group of people or bots may be instrumental in defining the customs and mores for the group. Rallies and marches seem to be their churches and meeting halls.  Most groups are frequently in political conflict with many if not most of the other groups.

 Indeed politics seems to be the art of putting together a platform of mores that reflects a large segment of the society or pretends to in order to attract a plurality of the voting population.