I think some biologists would argue that the distinction has to do with whom you view as “human,” or part of your own “group,” and this is culturally determined. In-group altruism has powerful selective advantages on population scales (as opposed to individual scales), but who you view as part of your group seems to be culturally determined, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some people would let a minority (or even a child) drown.

But this doesn’t make our sense of empathy objective — since I don’t think this is something we’d be able to prove to someone who doesn’t share the same biological sense of empathy.

I’ll write a bit more on this later, I’ve been meaning to so thanks for reminding me!

However I think something of the claim still remains.
Even people who do the most brutal acts (eg. kill their daughter) are likely to have similar biological “gut� reactions to a “blank� person (child) in immediate danger.

So does this biological “gut” reaction mean that on some level morality is objective? Or maybe its still subjective because by the time you go from gut reaction to action- the process you go through (since its in your head) becomes subjective? Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Now, Mencius was doing this to make a point about the “essential” human nature — and in the 1000+ years since him (and in a society different to feudal China) we usually don’t find this talk useful. However I think something of the claim still remains.

Even people who do the most brutal acts (eg. kill their daughter) are likely to have similar biological “gut” reactions to a “blank” person (child) in immediate danger. The exception would be a sociopath — but the sad thing is that not everyone who kills their own daughter is a sociopath…