In Hagelian philosophy or thought: moral behaviour is that which mantins the ethical unit set up by society. Any ACT by an INDIVIDUAL on their own behalf is considered as without a moral aspect unless, it can be linked in fact or interaction to the greater wellbeing of society.

So in effect to make better your own lot In life would be in Hagelian thought, unethical and amoral (without moral). Even if a Mother or Father was to refuse signing an execution order to allow one's son to be executed by society. If one did do so in Hagelian thought one would be exalted as some kind of moral hero, as Abraham was considered a grate man for his faith and willingness to sacrifice his son to God.

Hagelian thought it would appear, sets the stage for social tyranny and calls it good. What is more this Hagelian approach appears at odds with fundimal nature and biology of man, serving as basis for compulsion to duties as dictated by the greater social system. In part it is this vein of thought I feel that keeps religion prevalent in the world despite its obvious failings in the world at large, these failures would ironically constitute an unethical society and moral vapidity.

It is a further example of the group affecting the individual's ability to survive. Which leads me to an extract of a former peace "The Rebirth: Life Lesson 30 Compassion, Care And Concern"

"That myth being Group Selection. Group Selection was championed by V.C. Wynn-Edwards in 1960 and popularised by an American TV show “Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom”. This is a misconception of the evolution of behaviour, Group selection was done in by a series of theoretical and empirical studies showing key patterns of behaviour were incompatible with it. The key works done by evolutionary biology. George Williams of SUNY Stony Brook and Bill Hamilton of Oxford University.

Often referred to as Neural Darwinism Charles Darwin postulated that group selection could impact the ability of the individual to survival in groups. He was most certainly correct in this assessment as we learned over time The Group is unconcerned with the individual unit it is expendable. The importance of the individual was best Highlight by B.F Skinner and C.B Fraser in “Schedules of Reinforcement” 1997 wherein the Operant Behaviour was contrasted with the work of Pavlov in his approach known as Classical Conditioning. In studying individuals non normative behaviour and accumulating the individual cases, under controlled conditions for the purpose of studying when to schedule reinforcement for operant behaviour methods, learning how animals learn new behaviour form spontaneous acts. Noting that once you allow for the different ways different species make contact with the environment what remains of their behaviour shows astonishingly similar properties. The use of "operant" here is as a noun: "an item of behaviour that is not a response to a prior stimulus but something which is initially spontaneous, which may reinforce or inhibit recurrence of that behaviour".

The sentiment here can be boiled down to a simple observation, most eusocial [1] insects in a colony or 'society' are non reproductive. Why would the individual ant forgo reproduction? Group Selection would of course say for the greater good of the group. Though one might say this is naive of any person to assume. Animals don’t behave for the good of species but rather they behave to maximise the number of copies of themselves. Williams of SUNY Stone Brooks elaborates how this more standard genetic system, in species from non eusocial insects to us was incompatible with Group Selection. So given that ‘selfish gene’ as coined by Darwin, were lead to individual selection. Though if we are inherently selfish which we indeed are how has it been possible for our groups to survive?

Individual section seems to best describe the behaviour of survival or surviving, for non eusocial animals take for example: a Lioness chasing down a zebre, were the zebra a group selectionist it would stop and sacrifice itself for the group but it does not. It runs like the wind. Another example might be the crossing heard animals at a river crossing laden with expectant Alligators In the program, “Mutual Of Oklahoma Wild Kingdom” it was presented that the oldest and sickly would galintly wade out and sacrifice themselves for the group. While the Gators were busy with the sacrifice the rest of the heard could cross. Poppycock [2] as we can see in the video below no such thing occurs. Raising the question form where did such a notion come? Not something I feel I can answer here but I have an idea." (more on this topic is available in the No Nonsense Philosophy group and page. Also on Patreon and IDW)