MJW

But morality is just a set of rules for a society and is therefore similar in many respects ..

Diesel

Ahh but we are back to the love of power and control thing overiding basic morals. Just cos there was a Hitler/Saddam/Phol Pot/Bush doesnt mean we all share their 'morals', despite being of the same species. Non human animals generally DO share the same sense of what you are interpreting as morals.

The global human different interpretation thing is a good point though. My big telly thing was gag though

D

what would scooby do

Don't forget that "love" is a simple chemical process in the brain..

Diesel

Who sets these rules? Not being religious I follow my own morals, and I wasnt specifically taugh these at school. I'm probably being naive and maybe they arent that intrinsic, but the general society rules are called laws and some invoice you with a NIP or FPN!

D

MJW

Read this :

Amazon.co.uk: The Genealogy of Morals: Books: Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche,Horace B. Samuel

To be enlightened !!

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Diesel - I'm a bit lost now if your saying other species have "morals" or not. I would argue that your "morals" are nothing more than basic animal instinct + a few bits and bobs your parents taught you.

"morals" are fairly flexible things anyhow in the grand scheme of the human species; and "morality" tends to only be extended to those in your cultural group (talking historically - this human liberalism has only been around for a mere nanosecond in our over-all species exsistance). So for us to comment on a Lion pack leader to kill a rivals offspring as wrong seems a little hypocritical for me - after all, our social leaders find plenty of excuses to knock people off for random reasons

Diesel

I need to finish General Sir Michael Jackson's book first, but I do like Kanye West's interpretation of the book

D

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Now we're talking about someone who may have had morals.. but didn't have much of a backbone. *ahem*

MJW

Hey don't diss Kanye, man !

Diesel

Yes sorry mate, I dont think animals have, or should be expected to have morals. I think humans should.

However from what you say, rightly, it is all a bit of a dead duck, and it is all about survival of the fittest. I think I need to toughen up a bit and s0d these wishy washy easily trampled on moral thingys. The will only hold you back!

D

JTaylor

Brilliant! Half way through Unweaving the Rainbow at the moment which I would also recommend (as well as every other book he's written).

RichardDawkins.net Forum • Index page

God bless Richard Dawkins.

thesyn

In order to run a successful business amoral and selfish behaviour is tolerated and encouraged.

JTaylor

Karen Armstrong's also worth a look.

Diesel

By whom? Sure you have to step on a few toes now and again... But 'amoral'???

D

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

...its because your just stamping all over the poor proletariat you evil capitalist pigs.

Now wheres Nacro when you need him?

Reality

Nackers is only worried about the ethnic prollies - he doesn't like white prollies at all

ps I wasn't stirring Bubba - as I said I was getting the thread going.

But without the resident SN Preachers this thread will get nowhere .

As for Lions killing cubs - that's just survival of the fittest and I guess it does demonstrate the difference between society and morals.

Like it or not - Our morals today were formed by Religion.

Maybe with the demise of most of our organised religions we are seeing what it's doing to our societies morals - and we're become more like our feline friends.

Bubba po

I didn't mean it in a bad way.

It is perfectly moral to kill the cubs of a rival from a Lion's point of view, if the alternative is that he has to feed them and protect them at the expense of his own offspring. That kind of behaviour is too altruistic to be favoured by natural selection.

Reality

You don't mean anything in a bad way - as far as I've seen

Reality

It's not morals - it's vanity - no ******* cat's ******** while I'm top cat

OllyK

Just put a slight slant on things. Christians in particular point to the 10 commandments as the basis for good morals. When you look at them, some are nothing to do with morals, those that are are often broken, both in the bible and today and some can been seen in general animal behaviour.

1. You shall have no other Gods before me
Nothing to do with morals, just an instruction from god. Interestingly it acknowledges other gods may exist and it's OK to whorship them, just as long as the abrahmic god gets the bulk of the praise.

2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
Nothing to do with morals.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
Still no morals

4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
Nearly half way and still nothing

5. Respect your father and mother.
Good advice, not sure how easy it would be to observe this in animals though

6. You must not kill.
Again good advice, but murder is a pretty common occurence still these days, either on the street or in wars and of course we still kill animals for food. On this front I think the animals are probably doing better.

7. You must not commit adultery.
Again, not bad advice, but there are cultures out there where they are either polygamous and there are also the "free love" type comunes. I've never seen animals having a wedding ceremony, but there are plenty of species that mate for life, wales and penguins for example.

8. You must not steal.
Again good advice, but there's plenty of it going on and certainly in wars from times gone by (if not the current day) looting occured. Often wars were fought for the sole purpose of increasing wealth, the Egyptians in particular took this approach. Again many community based animals don't steal (food) from each other, they don't have much else to steal though.

9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
Fine, perjury isn't exactly unheard of today. Not sure animals have courts.

10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods
Well fine, but so what as long as you don't act on it, i.e. steal it. Again, not sure this entirely applies to animals.

Diesel

Yep - that is what it is! 'I want all baby lions to look like ME'!!! D

Geezer

"I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it. "

Oh the irony! Surely most of the stuff on that site is a **** take?

Geezer

OllyK

Each quote states where the source came from, usually hyperlinked to the thread. The problem is that the fundie sites infract, ban and delete threads more than this place ( ) so often the original is missing, but in the times I have been on the fundie sites, this stuff is representative. Trouble is I usually get banned from them within a couple of posts for asking for things like evidence, they don't like that

OllyK

Here's a nice fluffy fundie website, belonging to the Westboro Baptist Church (home to Fred Phelps) who plan to protest Heath Ledgers funeral because he was. Never mind that he wasn't (AFAIK) gay, had been married and had kids, because he played a gay man in a film, he is gay as far as these nut jobs are concerned.

A people say religion is harmless.

Leslie

This is a very interesting question and I have not actually heard it posed before.

I think that all animals which herd together learn that there is a way to behave which is good for the herd and ultimately themselves. By the same token there will always be those with an eye to the main chance who will try to score off the others. They either do this by being cleverer in the way they go through life or simply by cheating with no regard for those they are fleecing.

Generally humans follow that example and what we try to do is to live in what we call a civilsed society. For that to succeed people have to accept that laws are made for everyone's guidance for the general good, and also to accept respect for some form of authority.

This is of course a very simplistic way of looking at it but it is a formula which has worked for all of time and does not have to be that complicated.

There is of course a great outcry from the atheists about the terrible way in which religion attempts to control us all to our detriment. If you look at the basic beliefs of most religions it is apparent that people are encouraged to lead a good life with due regard for others. The trap here is that it is possible for people to go over the top in these beliefs and they can be easily led by the unscrupulous who will jump in and use the situation for their own selfish requirements. This is where the troubles all begin as far as fundamentalism and its dangers are concerned.

It is unfair to say that religion is at the root of all the evil things we have seen happening and although I am not saying that religion is necessary for people to live in a good civilsed manner, it can certainly help and I believe that many of our troubles are also caused by the movement away from the Christian religions in this country and its denigration by the authorities in favour of minority religions.

The most important thing is for children to be brought up properly from an early age by their parents and taught to respect authority as I mentioned and to think of others as well as themselves. I think it is right that they should understand what religion is all about-all denominations for that matter and be free to make their own choice later in life.

The problems we see from so many young people these days stem from the complete lack of responsibility from their parents who allow them to do just what they want, let them stay out all hours, and give them no kind of discipline or guidance as to how they should behave in a civilsed society.

Les

OllyK

Indeed, laws do tend to be very complicated, morals can be boiled down to:
"Treat others as you'd like them to treat you"

Ho hum! Replace atheist with "those against formal religion" and I'll go along with that.

Oh yes, and there's plenty of it about sadly.

I'd add to that. they should be taught critical thinking skills alongside any religious teaching as a balance, without that it becoems indoctrination.

That I'll agree with

Leslie

We are not so far apart this time then Olly! I have no argument with your post.

Les

OllyK

Glad to see you coming around to my way of thinking

lozgti

Moral-practising virtue

Moralist-person for whom morality requires no religious sanction

Definition from (acceptedly old)dictionary but seems to be an overlap.

Leslie

I was going to say the same to you!

Les