Yes, that one does seem out of step in today's world. I think it is meant to mean that in situations where a problem arises in a community, we defer to those with superior knowledge about the issue. As a behavior of the group...not to be meant on an interpersonal level. Or at least that is the way I am understanding that one. As an example, in the medical field...I will defer to people with the training and skills to treat me. But I understand how that word resembles 'submission', and most of us don't like to think of being THAT.

I think the author of the article has novice level life experience and has read many books and never applied the actual knowledge to real life scenarios.

@mojo5501 I feel that the list is about how morality "is" rather than how it should be.

@Fernapple I'm not particularly crazy about anyone telling me about "should".

@Fernapple Well, I suppose that could be arranged by somebody with that purpose. The purpose of this particular article was to focus on what was found to be 'universal'. Not particularly a moral handbook. And that does beg the question, do we humans needs a moral handbook so that we know how to treat each other and to resolve disputes without violence or harm?

@mojo5501 We've had the "handbooks". Granted, they're primarily religious texts, but they failed as well.
"Moral handbooks" always fail.

@KKGator And here, I have to dispute your 'always' kind of thinking. The future is what we make it and this statement from the article is what inspired me to share it in the first place: "“Everyone everywhere shares a common moral code. All agree that cooperating, promoting the common good, is the right thing to do.” Just because something failed before doesn't necessarily mean it will never work in the future. At least we can agree that mutual understanding is a goal to strive for, right?

@mojo5501 I understand what you're saying, and I shouldn't have used the word "always".

However, I have no illusions about achieving "mutual understanding".
I don't believe humans are capable of it. It's a nice concept, and I'm sure it makes many people "feel better" about the future, because they believe that striving for that particular goal is something that may eventually happen.
I do not share that hope.

I don't have the same faith in humanity that it seems you, and others, do.
I also don't see it as being "negative", just realistic.
I have no hope for the betterment of humanity. Most definitely not in my lifetime.

@mojo5501 not so sure about the “everyone, everywhere” remark. I don’t see the common good being promoted by Cardinal Pell, Jimmy Saville, etc.

Well, yours' is a perfect example of a moral rule that got broken...and it will affect the way you behave in the future as an individual. Rather than uniting or cooperating, you will not trust the motives of the people who have 'burned' you in the past!

@mojo5501 The truth is that it's taken a lifetime for me to get here. My usual pattern is to cool off and get suckered and used some more. I'm just getting too old for hope to keep triumphing over experience.

Of course it's not all negative. But I am sad to say, the preponderance has been negative.

Couple that with the fact we've had 3 cancer diagnoses in our neighborhood in the past year, one of them already gone and the other two not looking good, one stroke and a physical collapse plus this emergency open heart surgery I describe above, on the spouse of the deceased cancer patient -- and this isn't even a senior living community or something. So there's an overwhelm factor that comes into play, especially in the age of Trump with its constant undertone of alarming incompetence and baroque graft and cruelty.

I feel like I'm doing damn good just keeping my head up in this environment.

Well, you're probably (hopefully) joking there. Primate studies show that many females in ape communities will prefer the males who aren't aggressive or greedy with food distribution. Cooperation is really a big part of social group behavior...sharing, reciprocating, grooming......

@mojo5501 "... Primate studies show..." Show me the links. Also, note that different primate species have different social norms...Bonobos vs. Chimps for instance. Humans are generally a nasty species.

@dahermit The work of Frans de Waal demonstrates that a lot of the stereotypes about apes are simply wrong. The violent male, the submissive female...for example. And yes, the difference between chimpanzees and bonobos are widely known. I will mention the book "Chimpanzee Politics" as an example of an insightful book about social interactions in primate groups. Much of de Waal's work points to the kind of behaviors that are pro-social...not aggressive. And some of them mirror what we would call a moral framework in its simplest form. How conflicts are avoided or dealt with, how sharing and grooming will tighten social bonds, how stressful it is to be the leader of the community...that kind of insightful information that is gathered by closely studying the behavior of social animals.

@mojo5501 Yeah...and chimps do not "go hunting" other tribes of chimps to eat, and do not ever snatch away babies from the mothers in their own tribes and eat them. Yup, prosocial behavior in chimps to be sure. Just because de Waal did not see it does not mean it wasn't happening...Goodall did.

@dahermit You obviously have a point to make and you've made it.

Yes, true bravery is to overcome one's fears and act despite them.

Yes, I agree. I didn't really understand what this sentence in the article even meant: "resolving conflicts through contests which entail “hawkish displays of dominance” such as bravery ". That seems like an odd and limited definition of bravery to me. That sentence needs some serious dissection. Can anybody explain that?