• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Questioning human morals through animal behavior

Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky

Frumious Bandersnatch
Joined
Nov 3, 1999
Messages
1,297
Location
Looking-Glass Land
I was thinking about this while driving today.

Stealing is bad right? There are many species of animals which are constantly stealing food and resources from members of their own kind, not just animals like vultures. This is likely a requirement of their survival.

Murdering another human being is considered one of the greatest sins of morality yet we have factories and systematically murder billions of animals every year (for our survival). Animals also kill each other over territory, food, etc.

and yet I say are we not just animals ourselves? Why are we different?

I guess you could say morality is a product of intelligence?

Most people (except probably fundamentalist religion types) would agree that we are monkeys. We are animals. Why do we have different rules? Different rules separate from nature.

I don't think humans are really so special.
 
We are monkeys, but we have a highly advanced ability to manipulate our environment, big frontal lobes, and neural systems designed for sophisticated communication that enable us to formulate and sometimes behave with more compassion than animals.

Animals leave the weak to die, and do all sorts of other things that most humans strive not to do.

Ethical norms differ across societies, absolutely, but it’s interesting how they are similar in the ideal.

Great topic.
 
morality itself is something that either truly exists and would only be applicable if it so is that a all loving all good all powerful exists. Without the underlying framework of reality been moral then how could humans ever try become morally good or be able to make that distinction?.

Life is the iterative process of the universe expanding its self-awareness life eats life everything is a self contained system that is able to support itself forever til it reaches the ultimate conclusion transhumanism the ultimate lifeform.

Labelling anything good or evil or moral or immoral is just another attachment to the illusion of the world. All forms will dissolve so really nothing outside of your true undying self matters. To stay in the formless nirvana requires no attachment especially to things like good and evil which is suffering. Animals act fully in their instinct mind and fufil their nature and life encoded processs
 
I guess this depends on if one believes that humans possess a free will. I'd say that we don't, but that's my opinion. We do have great abilities and a will, but I wouldn't call it free. That'd probably give us unlimited power. Various religions teach us about a free will and I think that's where that idea comes from. It's totally nonsensical to my views though and I don't see a reason to try to deify humans and make them appear superior to other creatures

Speaking of creatures, I don't particularly like the comparison to animals. In my view, we're not animals or related to them. They're also not inferior to us, they're just different in ways that are difficult to compare. It's not to say that animals can't experience complex emotions or bonds with each other or even with humans; it's that they're animals and they're from a different part of the Earth and operate on different frequencies from us

I'm not asking anybody to believe what I say here. It's my opinion. If I had to answer the question directly, I'd say that we humans aren't moral because what we do makes us moral. That means we don't have morality but we can achieve it, if that's what one desires anyway

Peace
 
In Buddhism there is the concept of (Nagarjuna's) dependent origination. Every thing in existence is dependent on everything else. To me it is as if a man born blind is free compared to those with a working pair of eyes.

In any case, freedom is not an inherently positive thing, because foremost freedom negates. There is also the case of one confuting that with liberty and the rights of man.
 
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said morality comes with intelligence. We have instincts, yes, and some of those are violence, anger, aggression, and selfishness, sometimes at least. But as humans, we have the intelligence to be able to feel our instincts, and not necessarily be ruled by them. We're able to say, you know what, I wouldn't want someone to do that to me, so I won't do that to them. Just because we feel something, doesn't mean we have to act on that. Not that it's such a simple matter all the time, but I do believe we have the ability to be altruistic and be kind to everyone unless aggression/violence is truly necessary (ie, not because you're angry, but because you're defending yourself or someone else). If everyone did so it would be in our best interest because imagine what a great world we could live in if we stopped fighting each other constantly. I think an increase in antisocial/hostile behavior occurs with high population density. Humans work best in small groups, tribes essentially, where everyone is dependent on each other for survival and everyone knows each other. Whereas in cities, people become unknown, potential attackers, competition.

But like I said, we have the ability to not act that way, unlike most animals. However the more people that act badly, the more people will act badly, because it becomes more and more normal, and let's face it, many times, the short term selfish gain of victimizing someone is a draw.
 
SnafuInTheVoid said:
I was thinking about this while driving today.

Stealing is bad right? There are many species of animals which are constantly stealing food and resources from members of their own kind, not just animals like vultures. This is likely a requirement of their survival.

Murdering another human being is considered one of the greatest sins of morality yet we have factories and systematically murder billions of animals every year (for our survival). Animals also kill each other over territory, food, etc.

and yet I say are we not just animals ourselves? Why are we different?

I guess you could say morality is a product of intelligence?

Most people (except probably fundamentalist religion types) would agree that we are monkeys. We are animals. Why do we have different rules? Different rules separate from nature.

I don't think humans are really so special.
Click to expand...

Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenists as well as naturalists.

We too look to nature for whatever it might teach us about morals, as well as all other ideologies, philosophies and theologies, and nature's imagined/perceived ideology. When you open those doors, then you will see the sickness in our religious theologies.

Have you noted that nature has no problem of evil. Neither do I as all human to human evil can be explained by nature and our need to compete and create losers to those competitions, who will think evil has befallen them. This price we pay for the greater good of our continuing evolution. If we did otherwise, we would go extinct.

Regards
DL
 
cduggles said:
We are monkeys, but we have a highly advanced ability to manipulate our environment, big frontal lobes, and neural systems designed for sophisticated communication that enable us to formulate and sometimes behave with more compassion than animals.

Animals leave the weak to die, and do all sorts of other things that most humans strive not to do.

Ethical norms differ across societies, absolutely, but it’s interesting how they are similar in the ideal.

Great topic.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Research stats show that better than 70% of us all begin our morals with some type of reciprocity rule.

We are all more alike than we think, --- when we set out tribal natures aside. Even Reps and Dems, when they back off on the hate for the other side.

Regards
DL
 
Here's a small but relevant paragraph from Schopenhauer to add to the message of the previous post.

Now to the more thorough investigation of the matter. Egoism is so deep-rooted a quality of all individuality in general that, in order to rouse the activity of an individual being, egotistical ends are the only ones on which we can count with certainty. It is true that the species has a prior, closer, and greater claim to the individual than has the perishable individuality itself. Yet when the individual is to be active, and even to make sacrifices for the sake of the continuance and constitution of the species, the importance of the matter cannot be made so comprehensible to his intellect, calculated as this is merely for individual ends, that its effect would be in accordance with the matter. Therefore in such a case, nature can attain her end only by implanting in the individual a certain delusion, and by virtue of this, that which in truth is merely a good thing for the species seems to him to be a good thing for himself, so that he serves the species, whereas he is under the delusion that he is serving himself. In this process a mere chimera, which vanishes immediately afterwards, floats before him, and, as motive, takes the place of a reality. This delusion is instinct.
 
TripSitterNZ said:
Without the underlying framework of reality been moral then how could humans ever try become morally good or be able to make that distinction?.
Click to expand...

By thinking critically.

The bible tells us to judge all the gods and moral systems and choose the best.

That is what Gnostic Christians do and that is why we were/are called the only good Christians.

If Christians did as their bible bids them do, they would condemn their genocidal god to hell, where he belongs.

TripSitterNZ said:
Labelling anything good or evil or moral or immoral is just another attachment to the illusion of the world.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

You would not condemn Hitler and his ilk to hell or label genocide as evil and immoral? Or would you?

If your child were raped would you label it _____________ .

Please fill in that blank.

Regards
DL
 
My cursory understanding of this is that the evolution of human social structure made us tribal, and the tribal nature allowed us to create division of labor. For the specialization of labor to function and serve the survival of the community, in-fighting had to stop and societies had to stop killing each other. Then we eventually invented agriculture and the tribal rules became expanded to larger civilization rules, with the culmination of the first codified laws, The Code of Hammurabi.

Don't be mistaken though, humans still do all those animal things. We steal, murder, rape, pillage, etc. It's just all concealed to maintain domestic order. You need only examine the behaviors of governments. They break all the rules, all the time, when it comes to acquiring another nation's resources.

It might be more useful to shift your analysis to the ruling class vs. the ruled class. The ruling class usually follows a different set of rules.
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
If your child were raped would you label it _____________ .
Click to expand...
Gnostic Bishop said:
Good or evil or moral or immoral
Click to expand...
Ah, I see now.
Quite the stumper as I personally do not see valid worth in any of the options provided: I simply do not "believe" in such defining concepts.
Also... I do not have a child but if it were happening to one of yours (globally); I will not and have not hesitate(d) to busabitchass. ;)
Always,
<3
 
PtahTek said:
Ah, I see now.
Quite the stumper as I personally do not see valid worth in any of the options provided: I simply do not "believe" in such defining concepts.
Also... I do not have a child but if it were happening to one of yours (globally); I will not and have not hesitate(d) to busabitchass. ;)
Always,
<3
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means.

It must be quite frustrating to not be able to say that rape is evil and immoral.

What term would you use?

Regards
DL
 
Gnostic Bishop said:
It must be quite frustrating to not be able to say that rape is evil and immoral.
Click to expand...
Just the opposite, friend: It is quite freeing. No time to break it down from my perspective so will have to leave off.

To briefly respond, though, I make judgement(s) in the moment... from the "heart". Maybe said judgement opens one up to harsher judgements upon themselves... no one can judge me any harsher than my own self-loathing.

I am fair I would like to think.
 
PtahTek said:
Just the opposite, friend: It is quite freeing. No time to break it down from my perspective so will have to leave off.

To briefly respond, though, I make judgement(s) in the moment... from the "heart". Maybe said judgement opens one up to harsher judgements upon themselves... no one can judge me any harsher than my own self-loathing.

I am fair I would like to think.
Click to expand...

Yet your self loathing, if you were a rapist, is not enough to make you say rape is evil.

If you were a judge, they would disbar you.

Hearts do not think or judge.

A mind does and what it concludes is what effects our hearts.

Regards
DL
 
Last edited:
All I know is that the first ever rape case in history would have gone down as but a desperate attempt by one to ensure the survival of the species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top