do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?

[Golfer]

If Batfink isn't the posterchild for why you shouldn't do drugs I don't think we'll ever find anything that is.

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by cpxxx
Stealing is wrong, whether it's a cigarette or a mountain of gold. It's wrong. No room for compromise. But in society there is a graduated series of punishments for theft.

Murder is wrong but depending on your interpretation of the sixth commandment, Killing is OK as long as it's justified. That's where human law comes into play. In certain countries execution for murder is morally acceptable but in most it's considered morally unacceptable and in fact murder. Killing in war is OK too but that is where it gets very messy and ambigious.  

But there tends to be a general taboo against killing other humans in most societies not surprisingly.

The answer really is that we set the rules to suit ourselves. We can invoke a God to support our cause or use patriotism or whatever 'ism' we like.  We can even murder other people as long as we can justify it to ourselves or we have the approval of the group or country or religion or 'ism' we belong to. The Nazis being the classic example.

There is no one morality. We all have our own. Often it coincides with whatever group we are part of. Even if it doesn't we tend to obey the rules set for us by other people in the group. The lawmakers whether elected by us or not, decide.  We obey or pay the consequences, which sometimes is to be put to death by others whose morality allows them to do so.

Remember stealing was once a capital crime in certain situations. Even children were hanged. The people who did so no doubt felt morally secure. Who are we to say they were wrong? In their minds the thief was a much a threat to society as the lions would be to b@tfink or b@tfink is to the lions??

If one day that group decided killing an insect is murder. Then so be it. Watch where you walk:noid

good stuff sir.

particularly the last 2 paragraphs.




you have just outlined, in my mind, human morality and its undulating course through history.


natural morality does most definitely exist, and is governed by no living creature, it is instinct.

instict is nothing to with human morality and human laws.


our laws were written, revised, and re-written for thousands of years untill we end where we are now with a thousand rules to human morality.


natural instict has been around since the dawn of the universe, and can never be edited or revised to suit who ever is in 'power'.

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by Golfer
If Batfink isn't the posterchild for why you shouldn't do drugs I don't think we'll ever find anything that is.

and humanity i general, golfer, is the poster child of why we should all divert our minds away from the 'human race' if we intend to make it to the year 3007AD.




btw, i dont 'do' drugs. i may drink some beer and i may smoke a little weed now and then.


if you would really care to account for the way i think as being as simple as doing some substances, and lets suppose you are correct in this assumption, then i would gladly thank the substances that took me away from thinking like you do. I was once right in the middle of your kind of human, and was really good at being that type of creature. I have been you, or like you, and i know what its like.

you have never been anything like me and so i feel doubtfull you can currently come anywhere near understanding my philosophy.

[cpxxx]

Indeed B@tfink, and the biggest problems often arise when natural instincts conflict with human morality or laws.

[B@tfinkV]

thats the nail hit square on the noggin cpxxx,  do you mind if i write that one down?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
is murder still murder and an equal crime accross the whole spectrum of life?

It isnt yet. But with the help of crackpots like PETA and the rest of the feelgood crowd we are well on our way to getting there

[Vad]

Originally posted by cpxxx
Indeed B@tfink, and the biggest problems often arise when natural instincts conflict with human morality or laws.

Unfortunately, natural instincts always conflict with morality and laws.
Teenager has some problems with his father. The simplest natural instinct  tells him to fight and get dominant position in family like lion would do, but  he doesn't do that. Why? because he knows the consequences. He can predict. His father had conversation with his manager, and it looks like he is going to be fired. He really wants to kill manager, to protect the wellbeing of his family, to fight... but he doesn't do that! Why? because he can predict.

Humans didn't change, we still act according our natural instincts. Alone or as a group. But that natural instincts were adjusted, they were a little bit modified because of our possibility to predict.

Adam and Eve were the first human who had this capability. But they were idiots in modern sense, they can predict results of their actions only on one step, otherwise they would never leave the Eden. But we have developed since that time, and even their sons were able to forecast for more than one step.

Right now our "morality" and "laws" are just a result of pre-calculated consequences of our actions. Say, somebody kills somebody for any reasons. After a long chain of events the result will be indictment and execution. Not everybody is clever enough to make all that necessary
inferences and forecast or calculate the possibility of the final result, so "law" and "moral" prompt them.

Amoral person is not who make something immoral but who is not clever enough to predict or avoid the results. Those who could are always moral. Because they were clever or strong enough to be not caught.

[B@tfinkV]

interesting.


the prospect that natural instincts work in direct conflict with human laws in an attempt to be true to those instincts.


i dont think natural instinct has ever or will ever change.


what has changed is human laws and morals, and natural instinct, being the powerfull force that it is, still finds ways to overcome the unatural boundries and live through this conflict thus theoreticaly proving that natural instinct is more powerfull than any human law.



this begs the question, which humans listen mostly to thier natural instincts, and which humans mostly follow human laws and ignore thier basic programming.


this also begs the definition between which natural instincts are acceptable to follow in a world dominated by human laws, and those that are not acceptable.


finally all this leads us to wonder, how long before natural instincts become the prevalent force behind humanity once more?

or will they ever?

[lasersailor184]

I find it funny how large a human is to a spider, and how  we can do infinitely more damage to it then it can to us.

Yet most of us get the willies pretty bad when one crawls over the arm of the couch when we are sitting there quiet.



Christ, i got the willies just looking for that picture.

[Brenjen]

Natural instincts have nothing to do with morality. There is no morality in nature. That lion you mentioned might not hurt you at all, but it's not because of his moral fortitude I guarantee it

[Hawco]

Insects annoy me all the time, humans only now and again, that's why I stamp on anything that comes within striking distance when I'm having a smoke and a cup of coffee outside, Inside I have a Tennis racket styled bug zupper, I use it all the time, morals? doesn't bother me one bit.

[lukster]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV


hurt plants = bad

hurt rocks =  not easy

Who are you to judge the quality of life of a rock?

Try doing no "hurt" to animal or plant and see how long you can go. I'm betting about 2 months.

[-tronski-]

Animals with morals?

If some golfers decided to play a round of golf in a nature reserve near a pride of Lions I don't think a lion has too much a moral discussion about it - and if they did attack whos fault would that be?

I do always find it amazing when say a shark takes a swimmer or surfer the natural instinct is that the shark should be found and killed because it is now a danger? Sharks do what sharks do, and if you happen to be in their enviroment there is a chance they may decide to chew on you...because thats what they do...

 Tronsky

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by Brenjen (also relates to tronski)
Natural instincts have nothing to do with morality. There is no morality in nature. That lion you mentioned might not hurt you at all, but it's not because of his moral fortitude I guarantee it

i disagree. but i do agree that it is not the lions own sense of morality that governs this situation.

the morals of nature that are instinct to the lion dictate his every action.

the lion that isnt hungry, and may not attack a human in close proximity does so because of the natural moral code.

if such mental programing did not exist, the lion might just as well maul the human and leave the carcass for the scavengers.

but no, the lion does not kill the human without something in its instinct telling it to.

he lion may not actively think about this moral situation, it does not need to. instinct tells the lion it has no need to mess with this creature as yet.



~  therefore the moral fortitude present is not that of the lion, but the moral foritude of nature herself that governs the instincts of all creation.

[lukster]

The only moral fortitude enforced by "nature" is survival of the fittest.