It's interesting that this concept of ethics evolved at all.
"Nature is red in tooth and claw." It's a brutal, heartless competition for resources and survival.
And yet through the vicious process of evolution, we developed empathy and a sense of fairness. Those instincts must have some cold, rational benefit for the survival of the group.
It's because there's conflict between individuals but also between groups. With inter-group competition, the tribe that cooperates better is going to out-compete the tribe that succumbs to in-fighting.
The alarming corollary is that, in the absence of inter-group competition, intra-group competition becomes the only relevant evolutionary pressure. Basically, a society without enemies may be destined to become more selfish over time. This could be the main driving force behind the "inevitable" rise and fall of dominant civilizations.
The big question is: how does one delineate the in-group from the out-group? How can we invent that boundary to minimize conflict overall?
Not to state the obvious, but a group working together survive better than a person that no one wants to work with because they are a known cheat or backstabber. It's just that in modern society, there are so many people that the reputation metric is harder to keep track of.
> It's interesting that this concept of ethics evolved at all.
Not really. A coalition by definition means the utility of the group is greater than the sum of the individuals were they not to "collude". It is a natural consequence of social relationships. It would be surprising if it had not evolved. Were we not social creatures, I'd agree.
Yeah. For example a society where people work together for the benefit of all, instead of having some people exploit the others.