Author Topic: do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?  (Read 1513 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #60 on: January 04, 2007, 09:55:19 AM »
If you do not believe that man has a soul or that there is a god then there is no difference between killing a man and killing any other life form... You would be prevented only by man made laws.  Of course.... some people need killing.

As for other moral crimes like stealing... there are degrees of evil here.   If you take a small amount from someone who will not miss it.. it is a relatively small evil... if you take a small amount from a poor person who will suffer or, his family will suffer from it... then that is a great evil.

If you lie to a policeman about an unjust law you have broken then it is perhaps not an evil at all.. the evil was the law..  

It is not difficult stuff here guys.

lazs

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #61 on: January 04, 2007, 09:56:52 AM »
well, its extremely inaccurate to equate nature, or the matierial world, with morals.  i think a pretty good working definition of "morals" is something like this one:

Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. ...

if you believe that morals are pro-survival behavior in humans, you may equate human morals to animal instinct to the extent that both are pro-survival, but it is only semantics.

whew.  im gonna have to go lay down now.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2007, 10:04:39 AM by Gunthr »
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline SteveBailey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #62 on: January 04, 2007, 10:07:18 AM »
Quote
quick as that the mouse was off and back under the fridge and the instant he did the cat sprang forwards and crashed into the fridge door in vain attempt to capture the now fleeing thief.explain that.


Simple, the mouse's flight triggered your cats pedatory instinct.  If an animal can "smell" fear as you put it, why do many animals freeze when in the proximity of a nearby predator; depending on blending in to save them from becoming a meal?  If a predator could "sense" fear the camouflage would have no benefit, the predator would have no trouble finding the terrified animal.  an example:  young deer... fawns. You really need to change your thinking here, it's simply not based on any truth.

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2007, 10:40:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by WMLute
where do viruses fit in to it all then.
they are alive as well.


Are they now?  Back when I was in highschool, I was told that scientists were trying to determine whether or not viruses were alive.

At the time, there were 5 standards to judge that something was alive.  Viruses had only 3.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline B@tfinkV

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5751
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #64 on: January 04, 2007, 01:54:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Simple, the mouse's flight triggered your cats pedatory instinct.  If an animal can "smell" fear as you put it, why do many animals freeze when in the proximity of a nearby predator; depending on blending in to save them from becoming a meal?  If a predator could "sense" fear the camouflage would have no benefit, the predator would have no trouble finding the terrified animal.  an example:  young deer... fawns. You really need to change your thinking here, it's simply not based on any truth.




it was a rhetorical question steve, i knew this quite obviously, if you read above posts it should be obvious that this analogy was to backup something i was trying to say about lions not always killing people who show no fear and pose no threat.


so gunthr, therefore morality is only aplicable to humans? we will have to find another word for nature's moral code then.


fair enough, humans coined the term and refined the definitions.


but is not life itself a more powerfull force than the human race?

why do we then presume that we can formulate morals and laws so well and yet deny that purest essance of life itself, life as a totaly wild lifeform, has not developed the same in the vast ammount of time our planet has been full of life?
 400 yrds on my tail, right where i want you... [/size]

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #65 on: January 04, 2007, 02:50:07 PM »
well Bat, if you lived way, way up in the cosmos, i think you would say that every life form on the planet earth is "in the wild".   the earth is a steamy, fertile, volatile and dog eat dog dangerous place where the struggle for survival takes place every second of every day.   the dominant species has learned to change the form of the earth to suit them, as every animal must either adapt or change to fit the environment.

the urge to life has no morals on the cellular level, there is only one thing, the urge to live and grow.   it isn't until it reaches the concept of "I am" in the ability to think that occurrs in the only known organ of flesh in the universe (that we know of) that is aware of itself:  the human brain.   "morals" are described only by man, which many believe we have acquired as children of God, whether we choose to believe it or not.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2007, 03:00:06 PM by Gunthr »
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline B@tfinkV

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5751
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #66 on: January 04, 2007, 03:04:16 PM »
fine philosophy guntr, and i read what you're saying with open eyes.


i think for me personaly, right now in my life, i find the absolute arrogance of humans considering themselves to be the only brain in the known universe to be aware of itself more than a little disconcerting for our future.


the house hold dog is aware of itself for sure, it knows that it will get fed and has no real fight to survive, and it enjoys walks, playing catch the ball, all that stuff. when you dont play with the dog for a few days it become petulant and bored, hankering for enjoyable liesure pursuits and to strut its funky stuff infront of the other dogs, a clear sign it is aware of itself.


this is most obviously attributable to the fact that it almost shares a common human existance, easy, no worries, thigns to do that are fun.

therefore it may not be a valid example for life itself as nature dictates it.



however, i could think of more.    have you never seen seagulls or other birds just playing on the wind? no struggle, no fight, just relaxing and having fun flying around on the wind and heat of the ground they hold such contempt for.

some dolphins are well known to have complex social groups, and to often enjoy a good group game with any debris or rubbish they find floating. they show thier healthy energy to one another, the flirt and jostle around and show many many signs of being aware of thier own existance.
 These are creatures with the power to diagnose cancers, illness, health in other lifeforms they are so developed in ways we never think about.



do humans really honestly assume they can rightly say we are the only lifeform known in the universe that is aware of ourselves, just because we have developed verbal communication? because we are 'civilised'?


why? how is it that we can be so ignorant a to belive that.
 400 yrds on my tail, right where i want you... [/size]

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #67 on: January 04, 2007, 03:51:24 PM »
Quote

i think for me personaly, right now in my life, i find the absolute arrogance of humans considering themselves to be the only brain in the known universe to be aware of itself more than a little disconcerting for our future.



i love ya Bat... don't ever change :)  its just that i don't know of any other tissue masses structured on the organ level that is self aware anywhere else in the universe.  (can you imagine a noodle organ with a mind of its own?)  i did leave a little wiggle room that there could be more ...  you know, never say never... but the scary t hing is, if there is another sentient species in the universe, it may not necessarily have morals  ....  it might just as well rip your heart out as shake hands with you.  You see what I'm driving at?
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline SteveBailey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #68 on: January 04, 2007, 03:58:35 PM »
Quote
it was a rhetorical question steve, i knew this quite obviously, if you read above posts it should be obvious that this analogy was to backup something i was trying to say about lions not always killing people who show no fear and pose no threat.


LOL, you're one of those sad people that can never admit they're wrong, aren't you?  Nice try but.... DENIED.

You stated it as fact not, as you say, an analogy.  You even argued your point with the story about your cat.
 An analogy is an example used to make a point about a similar point, it's not an incorrect statement or falsehood.

There's simply no point in debating this further with you.  You cannot debate with someone who refuses to acquiesce that their original position is flawed or incorrect and is unwilling to learn. It's more interesting to have discussions with walls. I'm done with you.

Offline B@tfinkV

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5751
see what im driving at?
« Reply #69 on: January 05, 2007, 07:36:36 AM »
very much so gunthr, and not I nor anyone could ever deny that sentiment.

heck, a human might just as well rip your heart out as shake hands in exactly the same situation? so maybe if were honest we might surmise that moals dont exist in the universe at all. :lol


i greatly appreciate the ability of another person who can discuss vastly opposing ideas and realise that you and I are not fighting for ourselves to be right or the winner of this subject, we are merely playing devil's advocate to the ideas that float into different heads. thank you sir.


hamish
 400 yrds on my tail, right where i want you... [/size]

Offline B@tfinkV

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5751
do the laws of humans, and the morals of nature have any place together?
« Reply #70 on: January 05, 2007, 10:07:52 AM »
oh and steve, you're lucky that you are a man bound by fact. one who cannot see the path to things that are not already visible. life is easier for you.
 400 yrds on my tail, right where i want you... [/size]