Requiem

I don't know what random, completely moronic strain of thought you pulled this from, but reading it is actually painful. Do you actually think that in life other than humans, organisms actually contemplate actions that might be right or wrong? Only in human society does right and wrong exist. It applies to no other form of life anywhere currently known. All of your half-witted examples in animalistic society are inane; all those actions act to maintain the survival of the species. If a predator killed besides to eat, its prey would eventually die out and then so would the predator, not to mention most predators couldn’t maintain the energy it would take to kill more than needed. As for the "animal societies", these particular species of animal would not be able to survive in the wild without the rest of their pack/herd/flock. So basically your entire viewpoint is imbecile and totally ridiculous

Skepticologist

I refer you my latest post in the Religion Is Important thread in the Philosophy section. The idea I'm developing is that morality is congruent with Darwinism, i.e. actions that cause harm to the human species, or impede its perpetuation, can be considered immoral.

You're right on target with your assertion that animals other than humans have no concept of morality, primarily because they lack the ability to think rationally. They are, instead, driven by instinct; and that instinct, while promoting the survival of the strongest and best adapted individuals, prevents them from engaging in behaviors that threaten the protection and perpetuation of their species.

Humans, on the other hand, despite their ability to think rationally, embrace moral standards developed thousands of years ago that are simply not relevant, in terms of perpetuating the human species, to today's world and the realities of the technological advances that have been made in the interim.

It's only human intervention that has negated the efficacy of animal instincts and brought many of their species to or beyond the point of extinction.

I am coming to believe that unless human moral codes are based on the perpetuation of our species in the here and now and, by extension to the perpetuation of animal species as well, they will not be effective in doing either.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

Requiem

I also believe this to be very true, Human morals have become more about asserting complete and utter dominance over all other species and nature itself, in the last 50 years or so, although the ambition has almost certainly been there for thousands, but if society continues on the path its following, in the long-term we'll find that by our own actions we've cause the, while not extinction, but great reduction of our population.

The main issue here is that right and wrong are essentially, very human concepts that are used only in human society and, I personally believe, no one can judge another’s actions as being "right" or "wrong" because the distinctions between these vary not only from culture to culture, but also from individual person to person, and I think I've just come to the conclusion that right and wrong have no differences between because they basically don't exist, they are built on past generations thousands of years old as Skepticologist mentioned and cannot be judged as "right" or "wrong" by anyone that’s not the person executing the action.

I'm not saying that murder and theft or treason are "right", just that wrong is so abstract that it cannot be defined, unless you use the as put forth by Skepticologist, which I agree with mostly. That is my opinion on the differance between right and wrong. So far.

__________________
"He who has a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
- Sir Winston Churchill

NotConvinced

Always nice to welcome another relativist, check out the threat Skep pointed to...I'm up against this Christian dude who says chaos would ensue if it weren't for "absolute morality."

greywolf90

i'm glad you're here. we do not have enough hostile people here already. as a suggestion, if you put more thought in your argument and less thought into your insults, you might actually make a point. no, organisms as far as i know do not have rules on what is right and wrong. right and wrong are strictly perceptions of the human brain. that being said, a human can precieve the actions of an animal or other organism as right or wrong according to the individual human's definition. a person may consider a parasite killing an animal as wrong, or a cell destoying a virus as right. therefore, animals are capable of committing right or wrong actions because right and wrong are human concepts that we apply to the actions of other organisms. now i am here for discussion and exchanging information, so if all you want to do trade insults, i think you'd better find someone else to talk to because i have better things to do with my time.

greywolf90

first of all, i am not christian, so you'd be better off not making assumptions. second of all, i don't think you understand my meaning at all. i said nothing about an "absolute morality." this is impossible because right and wrong are human concepts that are specific to each person. what harms one person may benefit another and so on... my meaning was that as long as humans have intellegence, right and wrong exist because there are always things that we either agree or disagree with. those who say that "right and wrong do not exist" or "there is no difference between right and wrong" i believe are contradicting themselves. by simply making these statements, they probably think that they are right, and those who disagree are wrong. so for them, right and wrong do exist. now how would a brain without any concepts of right and wrong function? there would be no difference between what you agree with or disagree with, so you would not be able to agree or disagree with what i am saying now. all that you would be able to do would be to acknowledge something without having any opinion of it. to me, this sounds more like machine intelligence than a human. this is the "chaos" that i was referring to, which i admit was the wrong phrase after seeing everyone's reaction to it.

Requiem

How can there be anything besides relativism? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely open to new ideas and concepts, but every action attempting to be judged, for example, must take into consideration the person’s or society’s or whatever's history, culture, beliefs, time period, etc. No morals, values, ideas, concepts or perceptions of any kind are ever absolute or final.

They are always subject to change and formation, constantly being chiseled and morphed into more and more complex or less and less intricate impressions. That argument belongs in a new thread however, so to mainstay the issue of the differences between right and wrong, it most definitely must be taken from a relative viewpoint.

__________________
"He who has a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
- Sir Winston Churchill

Skepticologist

At this point in my thinking, it occurs to me that what can be considered moral values differ between animals and humans only to the extent that humans are more technologically advanced. As humans at our present stage of development, we don't have to kill other humans in order to survive. Animals, on the other hand, at least those of the carnivorous variety, don't have the capacity to provide for their survival in any other way than to kill another animal. Still, the balance of nature ensures that the requisite taking of other animals' lives doesn't result in the annhialation of the prey species.

So it may still be true that moral values, in the form of animal instincts and human ideals, are guided by an inherent interest in perpetuating the species.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

to_hobbes

I an agnostic, but I still believe in absolute morals.

When people say morals are relative, they always mention examples of things that one person would say is good and another would say is evil. But to me, this just means that no one can agree on what is morally right, even though what is morally right is universal. It goes along with absolute truth -- I say absolute truth exists, but no one could ever possibly know it (if you define absolute truth as some God-like set of rules see there is an extensive discussion in this thread). Absolute truth exists in our minds, but what does exist in our minds is not absolute truth, it's an imperfect shadow of the truth. As it is also with morals.

However, I apply this moral to my life: "always be constructive and helpful to yourself and your fellow human beings"

The difficult thing is figuring out how to fulfill that moral. But there are a few tried-and-true methods that work pretty well, for example the golden rule, or the more simple-minded "don't kill, steal, cheat, or lie unless...". These tried-and-true methods are an imperfect understanding of the absolutely perfect morals that apply to everyone. It's just that we can never know the perfect morals, that's why so many people disagree and morals appear to be relative.

romansh

Hi hobbes

could you explain/define what is an absolute moral ..... please?

one starting question though ..... if there were no human beings (or other supposedly sentient beings) would absolute morals exist and could you give an example?

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams