Morality is often grounded in religions. There's a lot of debate about whether it can be grounded without religion. In this text, I will present arguments showing that religion or other mystical elements are unnecessary for grounding morality.
In evolutionary history, social creatures had to get along with each other, or the species would not survive. This is a simple natural selection mechanism: cooperative species -> community survives, uncooperative species -> dies out. Over time, only cooperative species remain.
But it doesn't stop there. Human brains seem to have learned this over time: they reward goodness with pleasure. Yes, fundamentally, all good deeds are done for ourselves. Think about the good things you've done -- at their core, they were motivated by your own desire for pleasure.
For example: helping someone in need -> triggers empathy in the brain. Your brain secretly promises you pleasure when you do good, and it delivers. Even someone who sacrifices their life for something experiences this.
Our good deeds toward humans have an evolutionary origin, but what about animals? Why do we help them? I don't know the full answer, but I think it's an extension of the pleasure we get from doing good to humans.
Helping animals also benefits us in some way. For example, we care for a cat because we find it cute, or we feed a cow because it provides milk. Evidence supporting this is simple: we adore ladybugs but hate cockroaches.
Consider a restaurant. Why does it provide high-quality service? Is it because the staff wants to do good? Of course not -- it's to earn more money.
What if someone wanted to do it purely out of kindness? It would likely fail. MrBeast gives money to everyone -- is it pure altruism? No, even this is a form of pragmatic strategy. Pure altruism, without considering outcomes, can be less effective in producing long-term good.
This perspective also explains capitalism and communism:
Capitalism: Everyone owns private property, can produce and trade, and thus has the chance to acquire more goods.
Communism: Everything is shared, no one seeks personal gain, and everyone is equally happy.
Which one succeeded? You probably already know the answer.
We've explained the flow -- evolutionary processes, brain-pleasure responses, etc. But the question remains: Why should we do good and avoid evil?
Actually, good and evil are concepts we created. For one person, eating meat might be evil; for another, declaring war might be right.
Right now, two factors guide whether we perform good deeds or avoid harmful ones:
Whether our brain associates the action with pleasure.
Even if an action doesn't give immediate pleasure, whether it indirectly affects us in a chain of consequences.
For example, if someone we dislike is unjustly imprisoned, our brain might react with pleasure. But according to factor #2, considering the causal chain:
Someone is unjustly imprisoned -> others might also be unjustly imprisoned -> we or our loved ones could be affected -> we should respond to prevent this.
A psychopath's brain may derive pleasure from harming others. What should we do in this case? Again, factor #2 applies. Evolution provides a general guideline, but anomalies require responses based on the causal chain rather than immediate pleasure.
In short, everything is ultimately for ourselves, whether short-term or long-term. People who deliberately sabotage others' pleasure usually fail, though some succeed temporarily.
Here, the question becomes less about "Who is right?" and more about "Who is powerful?"
This is not to say someone who uses power to do harm is justified. It just shows that simply declaring "you are wrong" is often meaningless. If we have the power to stop them, that is what matters -- and that's where real moral action begins.