Originally Posted by archetypal fool

I've recently started reading the Republic for the first time, and I came to a very personally significant point: When Socrates is debating with Thrasymachus about what is justice, they come to the point where they're taking sides in the modern notion of ethical egotism, with Socrates against the notion and Thrasymachus for. Thrasymachus' argument is that everyone should always act in such a way that they always benefit, regardless of the consequences. Socrates argues against this, stating that if every individual acted in such a way, then society would break down.

As a biology major, this conclusion struck a chord within me - this is the same conclusion animal behaviorists and ecologists come to; it makes perfect sense: If every individual within a species acted on its own accord, as selfish and individualistic as Thrasymachus suggests we should, that species would quickly go extinct, and thus, a fine balance between ethical and unethical behavior has evolved and is present within us - it is because of this ultimate result that it is reasonable to conclude that our notions of true and relevant ethics and morals are derived from nature, from our very own ancestors, and are not culturally relative (as Thrasymachus also claims) or pointless/stupid (as Glaucon states).

Theists adamantly claim that morals and ethics are provided to us through belief in diety, as well as adherence to a holy book of choice - I refute this claim and return that ethics and morals are not products of society, but rather, they are hard-wired into out nature, our being, and our collective conciseness.

But, then again, I could be wrong. What does the TFP community think about the subject?