I fail to understand what you like or not has anything to do with Locke's or Jefferson's position. To cite my own example, I do not like to have had heart attacks and be constrained to a wheelchair. That does not influence the truth that this is the philosophical basis of our nation. Like it or not, it is. Alot of people don't like it, but that's what it is. Liking it or not doesn't change the fact that it is, lol, that's how a child argues about things, not a philosopher.
The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
Oh, I agree. But that fact alone won't give us the answers to any moral questions.
Agree, though I'd argue that Locke and Jefferson would also agree (though perhaps limiting their concern to the well-being of humans).So while Locke or Jefferson or Mary next door might have their own notions of what might appropriately distinguish an Is from an Ought, morally justify actions or rules, you and I agree that it's the wellbeing of sentient creatures.
Agree with most of that, but we can't take a "communal approach" if that implies that a community has interests of its own which are distinct from those of its individual members and which can override those interests. That would be a logical error, since communities are nothing but the individuals who constitute them, and the only well-being discernible or measurable is the well-being of those individuals, which must be determined separately for each of them. But perhaps you meant something else by "communal approach." ??How do we work towards maximising, or improving, the welfare of sentient beings.
Now we might take the approach that we prioritise enabling each individual to maximise their own wellbeing, as in your formulation, or we might take a more communal approach - which is where you and I differ. But either way, I don't see why we should be bound by traditional framings of morality which aren't appropriate to our wellbeing framing. We can ditch God as our justification, because it's not appropriate to our foundation. We can look afresh at the nature of the world, through the lens of our moral justification lying in wellbeing. And note for example other species are sentient too. We don't have to stick to morality based definitions and justifications which aren't appropriate to our foundation.
What other reasons would there be, other than promoting/preserving well-being, for either us or Locke?We can say it's wrong to kill or steal for our reasons, not Locke's.
Well, we can certainly propose moral rules not considered by Locke or Jefferson, as long as we advance some coherent moral argument for them. But if "re-conceptualizing" rights means discarding the constraints they impose upon inflicting loss or injury on others, then we're just indulging in Newspeak. We're co-opting a term with a well-understood meaning and deploying it with a contradictory meaning, in the hope that some of its connotations will carry over, in uncritical minds, to the new meaning. That is sophistry.We can re-conceptualise rights in a way applicable to our moral foundation, not someone else's. Just like Locke and Jefferson themselves did. We can change the rules of baseball to fit our own wellbeing-shaped playing field. Yay.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
Communities can indeed (it seems to me) have interests distinct from those of individual members. What about eusocial insects? Behaviors of individuals often make sense ONLY in terms of the benefits to "the community". Of course the community consists of individuals. But by VIEWING it as an organic thing, with its own (metaphorical) interests, we may be able to better understand social life, and enhance our ability to promote the well-being of individuals. I know you probably think humans differ from ants and bees in terms of "moral agency". But that's just a modern, non-religious way of echoing the religious arguments about the primacy of man, made in God's own image. (Does God have "moral agency"? Or can He only do good?)GE Morton wrote: ↑February 6th, 2022, 4:16 pm
Agree with most of that, but we can't take a "communal approach" if that implies that a community has interests of its own which are distinct from those of its individual members and which can override those interests. That would be a logical error, since communities are nothing but the individuals who constitute them, and the only well-being discernible or measurable is the well-being of those individuals, which must be determined separately for each of them. But perhaps you meant something else by "communal approach." ??
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
God is a far more effective abortionist; miscarrying far more foetuses than modern medicine. Most foetuses he aborts within the first couple of days. God aborts as many as 70% of all pregnancies without the mothers permission.
A human abortionist is so much more moral than God.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
I've never understood these atheistic critiques of God. He not only allows fetuses to die -- He allows everyone to die. Horrors! He killed all those first-born Egyptians. So what? He kills everyone else, too. He (if He exists) created a world in which everyone dies. If death is so bad, isn't Lazurus to be pitied? He had to die twice. I'm sure even the most naive evangelicals are aware of this.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 1:29 pm Not sure why all the American religionists are in such a funk about abortion.
God is a far more effective abortionist; miscarrying far more foetuses than modern medicine. Most foetuses he aborts within the first couple of days. God aborts as many as 70% of all pregnancies without the mothers permission.
A human abortionist is so much more moral than God.
Of course the flip side of that coin is that perhaps death is gift rather than a penalty (so say the stories, at any rate). "The gift of the One to men" -- acc. to Ol' J.R.R. It's more than a little silly to judge God by human standards, or humans by Godly ones. God causes everyone to die. He created humans as mortals. But that doesn't mean that we can't object when people murder other people. The comparison is irrelevant, because of our ignorance. "Who can know the mind of God".
As God asked Job: "
As far as the Supreme Court's pending decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it highlights a problem with judicial activism. Roe v. Wade was always a highly debatable decision from a legal standpoint, however much I may support it politically. The problem is that becasue its legal grounding was always dubious, it is rife for being overturned. Had the Supremes never decided Roe v. Wade, I'm guessing that legislation would have legalized abortion long ago. Who knows what will happen now?4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
Justice Blackmun's decision in Roe v. Wade has certainly been controversial, questioned not only by religious and intuitive/visceral "pro-lifers," but also by constitutional scholars who, like you (and me), generally support women's rights to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. But I think that decision, though reached via some bold and subtle --- i.e., not obvious --- reasoning, is constitutionally and rationally defensible.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 2:55 pm
As far as the Supreme Court's pending decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it highlights a problem with judicial activism. Roe v. Wade was always a highly debatable decision from a legal standpoint, however much I may support it politically. The problem is that becasue its legal grounding was always dubious, it is rife for being overturned. Had the Supremes never decided Roe v. Wade, I'm guessing that legislation would have legalized abortion long ago. Who knows what will happen now?
The two main scholarly objections to that reasoning are 1) the source and scope of the "right to privacy," and 2) the convoluted analysis of fetal development, and which restrictions on abortion can be imposed at different points during the course of that development. Here is a summary of those objections (just published today):
https://reason.com/2022/05/10/there-is- ... -reasoning
In the article Jacob Sullum points out that the Court in Roe is vague in pinpointing the textual source of the "right to privacy," which the Court first articulated in the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which struck down laws restricting sale and use of birth control devices:
"Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, 'Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.' Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
So that ambiguity in the source of the right to privacy descends directly from Griswold. In Roe, Blackmun saw no need to explore that source further, as long as the existence of that right was acknowledged. The substantive question is, Can any of the sources cited --- 4th Amendment, 9th Amendment, 14th Amendment --- support that right? I think they all do. The 9th Amendment is central here. It reads, "The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage or deny others retained by the people." That Amendment expressly acknowledges unenumerated rights, and thus implies that the Court will be called upon from time to time to identify and secure those rights in law. The Court in Griswold held that the right of privacy is implicit in the 4th and 14th Amendments, a finding few questioned at the time. That decision is precisely of the sort contemplated in the 9th Amendment.
So then the issue of the scope of that right to privacy arises: If a woman's decision as to whether to become pregnant is protected by the right of privacy, is her decision whether to continue a pregnancy not also protected? If not, why not?
The pro-lifers would claim, of course, that once an ovum is fertilized it becomes a "person," "endowed with a soul." An unfertilized egg and an unmated sperm cell are not persons --- a woman who sheds an unfertilized ovum every month is not a murderess --- but once the egg is fertilized the situation changes. Or so some claim. So the Court in Roe was forced to address that question. Blackmun did so by considering how "person" has been construed when used elsewhere in the Constitution, and also how abortion has been treated historically in common law countries.
The same issues that Blackmun addressed in Roe will still have to be addressed by the Court now; they can't avoid them. I doubt they can find answers any more defensible than his.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
Humans and human societies differ from eusocial insects in more fundamental ways than moral agency. Their DNA forces a particular structure upon them and the societies they form, which they have no power to change. Humans are not biologically bound to any particular social form, or to any at all.Ecurb wrote: ↑February 6th, 2022, 5:57 pm Communities can indeed (it seems to me) have interests distinct from those of individual members. What about eusocial insects? Behaviors of individuals often make sense ONLY in terms of the benefits to "the community". Of course the community consists of individuals. But by VIEWING it as an organic thing, with its own (metaphorical) interests, we may be able to better understand social life, and enhance our ability to promote the well-being of individuals. I know you probably think humans differ from ants and bees in terms of "moral agency". But that's just a modern, non-religious way of echoing the religious arguments about the primacy of man, made in God's own image. (Does God have "moral agency"? Or can He only do good?)
The "interests" of eusocial insects are commanded by their genes (if we wish to call innate behavioral programming "interests").
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
And we can learn and improve by his example, by only killing those foetuses that are unwanted.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 2:55 pmI've never understood these atheistic critiques of God. He not only allows fetuses to die -- He allows everyone to die. Horrors! He killed all those first-born Egyptians. So what? He kills everyone else, too. He (if He exists) created a world in which everyone dies. If death is so bad, isn't Lazurus to be pitied? He had to die twice. I'm sure even the most naive evangelicals are aware of this.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 1:29 pm Not sure why all the American religionists are in such a funk about abortion.
God is a far more effective abortionist; miscarrying far more foetuses than modern medicine. Most foetuses he aborts within the first couple of days. God aborts as many as 70% of all pregnancies without the mothers permission.
A human abortionist is so much more moral than God.
Of maybe we should embrace god for what he is - a murdering psychopath?
But one thing is clear; there is no basis for forbearance due to his example.
Maybe you can understand that?
How is this a counter argument?
Of course the flip side of that coin is that perhaps death is gift rather than a penalty (so say the stories, at any rate). "The gift of the One to men" -- acc. to Ol' J.R.R. It's more than a little silly to judge God by human standards, or humans by Godly ones. God causes everyone to die. He created humans as mortals. But that doesn't mean that we can't object when people murder other people. The comparison is irrelevant, because of our ignorance. "Who can know the mind of God".
Hopefully sense will prevail and safe and timely abortions will continue, because the alternative is; Dangerous back street abortions; a new generation of unwanted babies with mothers that are not capable of the economic support they need to bring them up; having to carry the spawn of their rapist; and to give birth to the children that are going to have a higher percentage of psychopathy and criminality.
As God asked Job: "As far as the Supreme Court's pending decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, it highlights a problem with judicial activism. Roe v. Wade was always a highly debatable decision from a legal standpoint, however much I may support it politically. The problem is that becasue its legal grounding was always dubious, it is rife for being overturned. Had the Supremes never decided Roe v. Wade, I'm guessing that legislation would have legalized abortion long ago. Who knows what will happen now?4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
This is so obviously problematic, especially the theistic basis for this. There are two reasons for this, and one is obviously there is no hint of natural rights as such in the Bible, but mostly Locke was keen on providing his rights somewhat partially.ernestm wrote: ↑January 27th, 2022, 5:48 pm I am so bold to share a link to my own blog on this article because it stems from a discussion with President Obama in 2015 on some Lockean theory concerning natural rights of which he as unaware, despite being a professor of constitutional law. Half a dozen constitutional lawyers have reviewed prior drafts of it, as well as several state supreme court judges. However on sharing it publicly, there was a lot of confusion about facts they knew which it did not state. So I rewrote it extensively, until the only comments I got on it were that it must be wrong because Jefferson was a bad person.
https://yofiel.com/gnosticism/rights2.php
As the article does state, this is not taught in the USA public school system because of its theistic basis. So while the theory is quite well known in philosophy schools in Europe, where I learned it, it's unlikely you will have encountered it before.
Rights are all very well, unless you are Catholic.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
[Ad hominem attack removed]Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 4:25 am
And we can learn and improve by his example, by only killing those foetuses that are unwanted.
Of maybe we should embrace god for what he is - a murdering psychopath?
But one thing is clear; there is no basis for forbearance due to his example.
Maybe you can understand that?How is this a counter argument?
Of course the flip side of that coin is that perhaps death is gift rather than a penalty (so say the stories, at any rate). "The gift of the One to men" -- acc. to Ol' J.R.R. It's more than a little silly to judge God by human standards, or humans by Godly ones. God causes everyone to die. He created humans as mortals. But that doesn't mean that we can't object when people murder other people. The comparison is irrelevant, because of our ignorance. "Who can know the mind of God".
To us humans, "What dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause." So says Hamlet, at least. To God, however, this is not the case. "Who can know the mind of God?" suggests that when people die, God may already know that they are leaving the troubled tides of the mortal world, and entering eternal bliss. Far from being a "murderous psychopath", God may be a gentle and comforting redeemer.
This in no way excuses murderers, who are specifically commanded not to commit murder by God Himself. "He was going to die anyway," is not a good excuse for murder, despite Sculptor's seeming acquiesance. That's because we humans (even those who are "born again") aren't actually privvy to the "Mind of God". It is not for us to "play God" and decide how and when people will die. Insulting God and Religion is rude; ignorance of basic Theology is silly. Combining the two disparages neither God nor religion.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
I'm not a legal scholar. My reasoning would be: "Laws are created to protect members of society. A fetus (at least until viablity) is not a member of society. Therefore the freedom of women -- who are members of society -- trumps any legal protections that a fetus may have." I don't know, however, whether this reasoning is supported by legal precedent or common law.GE Morton wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 9:49 pm
Justice Blackmun's decision in Roe v. Wade has certainly been controversial, questioned not only by religious and intuitive/visceral "pro-lifers," but also by constitutional scholars who, like you (and me), generally support women's rights to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. But I think that decision, though reached via some bold and subtle --- i.e., not obvious --- reasoning, is constitutionally and rationally defensible.
The two main scholarly objections to that reasoning are 1) the source and scope of the "right to privacy," and 2) the convoluted analysis of fetal development, and which restrictions on abortion can be imposed at different points during the course of that development. Here is a summary of those objections (just published today)\......
The same issues that Blackmun addressed in Roe will still have to be addressed by the Court now; they can't avoid them. I doubt they can find answers any more defensible than his.
Thanks for the recap, though. Still, "privacy" seems to me less compelling than "freedom".
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
They are the same thing. The apparent difference arises because "private" and "privacy" have two uses and implications: the terms connote, on the one hand, "secret, out of public view," and on the other, "personal, individual, not public or communal." E.g., private property is property belonging to a specific person or persons, not to "the public," but it is not secret or out of public view. Similarly, a private decision is one a particular person is entitled to make, but is not necessarily secret. The constitutional right to privacy contemplates the "personal" interpretation, not the "secret" interpretation.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 10:06 am
I'm not a legal scholar. My reasoning would be: "Laws are created to protect members of society. A fetus (at least until viablity) is not a member of society. Therefore the freedom of women -- who are members of society -- trumps any legal protections that a fetus may have." I don't know, however, whether this reasoning is supported by legal precedent or common law.
Thanks for the recap, though. Still, "privacy" seems to me less compelling than "freedom".
And the former is the same as "freedom" (personal freedom).
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
You have an idiosyncratic opinion uncommon amongst natural human societies.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 10:00 am[Ad hominem attack removed]Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 12th, 2022, 4:25 am
And we can learn and improve by his example, by only killing those foetuses that are unwanted.
Of maybe we should embrace god for what he is - a murdering psychopath?
But one thing is clear; there is no basis for forbearance due to his example.
Maybe you can understand that?How is this a counter argument?
Of course the flip side of that coin is that perhaps death is gift rather than a penalty (so say the stories, at any rate). "The gift of the One to men" -- acc. to Ol' J.R.R. It's more than a little silly to judge God by human standards, or humans by Godly ones. God causes everyone to die. He created humans as mortals. But that doesn't mean that we can't object when people murder other people. The comparison is irrelevant, because of our ignorance. "Who can know the mind of God".
To us humans, "What dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause." So says Hamlet, at least. To God, however, this is not the case. "Who can know the mind of God?" suggests that when people die, God may already know that they are leaving the troubled tides of the mortal world, and entering eternal bliss. Far from being a "murderous psychopath", God may be a gentle and comforting redeemer.
This in no way excuses murderers, who are specifically commanded not to commit murder by God Himself. "He was going to die anyway," is not a good excuse for murder, despite Sculptor's seeming acquiesance. That's because we humans (even those who are "born again") aren't actually privvy to the "Mind of God". It is not for us to "play God" and decide how and when people will die. Insulting God and Religion is rude; ignorance of basic Theology is silly. Combining the two disparages neither God nor religion.
If we are seriously to talk about "natural right", then we have to address anthropology; Shakespeare might touch many hearts, but his morality is firmly located in medieval England.
You say insulting God is silly and rude. But since there is no such thing it is more silly to defend this mythical being, and rude to try to silence others from doing so.
Religion has no need of disparagement since it is wholly absurd in its own terms, being a small portion of human existence, and only a temporary and declining mirage of opinion, ever changing, and hopefully soon to be set aside for more mature considerations of how to run a society.
Once more I am woken to the horrors of Theology and religion where I learned that a Christian girl was murdered and burnt by a mob of Muslim students.
I suppose for her a critique of theology was more than "silly", but I am not going to be dissuaded from the truth by you being offended by it.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
Let's look at it point by point:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 13th, 2022, 6:04 am
You have an idiosyncratic opinion uncommon amongst natural human societies.
If we are seriously to talk about "natural right", then we have to address anthropology; Shakespeare might touch many hearts, but his morality is firmly located in medieval England.
You say insulting God is silly and rude. But since there is no such thing it is more silly to defend this mythical being, and rude to try to silence others from doing so.
Religion has no need of disparagement since it is wholly absurd in its own terms, being a small portion of human existence, and only a temporary and declining mirage of opinion, ever changing, and hopefully soon to be set aside for more mature considerations of how to run a society.
Once more I am woken to the horrors of Theology and religion where I learned that a Christian girl was murdered and burnt by a mob of Muslim students.
I suppose for her a critique of theology was more than "silly", but I am not going to be dissuaded from the truth by you being offended by it.
If my opinion is "idiosyncratic", it is by definition "uncommon". But what are those "natural human societies" to which Sculptor refers? All human societies are culturally constituted, and "culture" is (acc. to some definitions) "artificial". Also, why do we "have to address anthropology"? Perhaps Sculptor means we have to examine the anthropological record, but if he does, why be so coy? Just say "examine" instead of "address". Sculptor continues:You have an idiosyncratic opinion uncommon amongst natural human societies.
If we are seriously to talk about "natural right", then we have to address anthropology; Shakespeare might touch many hearts, but his morality is firmly located in medieval England.
Is there "no such thing" as God, or "no such thing" as insulting God, or no such thing as insulting God (being) silly and rude? Sculptor doesn't say, but his sentence suggests the latter two possibilities. Then Sculptor clearly states (translating the sentence into plain English): "It is rude to try to silence others from defend(ing) this mythical being." Huh? Sculptor is either insulting himself or writing an unintelligible sentence! Sculptor continues:You say insulting God is silly and rude. But since there is no such thing it is more silly to defend this mythical being, and rude to try to silence others from doing so.
If religion has "no need of disparagement" (sic), why does Sculptor bother disparaging it? He is contradicting himself. Sculptor then claims religion is "wholly absurd in its own terms". Since theologians have endlessly pontificated on the internal logic of religion, this is clearly incorrect. Perhaps Sculptor means that religion is absurd from other points of view: the scientific or the rational, for example. But if so, why doesn't he say so, instead of saying the exact opposite? Besides, Sculptor's litany of criticisms could more correctly be applied to a scientific world view. Religion resists change; science is "temporary" and "ever changing".Religion has no need of disparagement since it is wholly absurd in its own terms, being a small portion of human existence, and only a temporary and declining mirage of opinion, ever changing, and hopefully soon to be set aside for more mature considerations of how to run a society.
I haven't read the story of the Christian girl's murder. Obviously, many horrible things are done in the name of religion, as in the name of Communism, Democracy, Capitalism, and (yes) science.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: The Lockean Basis for USA's Natural Rights
For Hobbes and Locke, "natural rights' meant "God-given rights" (correct me if I'm wrong, you're the expert on Hobbes and Locke). Eusocial insects aside, I think the divinity of man, created in God's image, persists in an atheistic age. For you, it is called "moral agency". If we stop differentiating between humans and other animals, perhaps we can see that any natural rights that exist for humans may also exist for other animals. Many animals are clearly "moral agents" (although on a different level from humans).GE Morton wrote: ↑May 11th, 2022, 11:18 pm I apparently overlooked this back in February. Just noticed today, with the new posts.
Humans and human societies differ from eusocial insects in more fundamental ways than moral agency. Their DNA forces a particular structure upon them and the societies they form, which they have no power to change. Humans are not biologically bound to any particular social form, or to any at all.Ecurb wrote: ↑February 6th, 2022, 5:57 pm Communities can indeed (it seems to me) have interests distinct from those of individual members. What about eusocial insects? Behaviors of individuals often make sense ONLY in terms of the benefits to "the community". Of course the community consists of individuals. But by VIEWING it as an organic thing, with its own (metaphorical) interests, we may be able to better understand social life, and enhance our ability to promote the well-being of individuals. I know you probably think humans differ from ants and bees in terms of "moral agency". But that's just a modern, non-religious way of echoing the religious arguments about the primacy of man, made in God's own image. (Does God have "moral agency"? Or can He only do good?)
The "interests" of eusocial insects are commanded by their genes (if we wish to call innate behavioral programming "interests").
I'm not sure DNA "forces" anything. All behaviors result from a combination of nature and nurture; from genetic and environmental influences. This is true for humans and for other animals. If we step on an ant, its DNA won't force it to do anything but die.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023