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

[B@tfinkV]

despite the inevitable end to an interesting debate i still think there is a topic for valid discussion here.


how is the murder of two different lifeforms a cause to make two seperate laws, or morals.

how is crushing an insect and murdering a human any different?

dont get me wrong, where im looking from one of those doesnt offend me, and the other is the cause of much sadness and offence to many people.


but in the grand story of life they both are an identical act or murder.

how is it we rulers of this planet justify our laws and yet fail to spread our 'human morals' to all lifeforms on this planet?


stealing a ciggarette from your brothers packet when he is not around to ask persmission, and stealing all the possesion from another persons house are both stealing, but how is it that us humans will morally accept one action and instantly damn the other action.



is murder still murder and an equal crime accross the whole spectrum of life?


is stealing still stealing no matter the target or reprocussions of the theft?



who draws the lines under what is acceptable and what is not?





lets try to keep it related to the topic, and far from breaking any forum rules. if you have a personal agenda againt another forum user here i suggest you have no place in this discusion.

[Eagler]

the day we understand that they are the same is the day there will be "Heaven on Earth"

sadly, we are far from that day

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Eagler
sadly, we are far from that day

Yes, especially considering I have next Tuesday free.  

[SteveBailey]

or morals.

I think you mean mores, pronounced " morays"

Simply put, individual morals become societal norms or expected behaviors known as mores.  

how is crushing an insect and murdering a human any different?

Biblicly speaking, the insect has no soul so there is a difference.  

stealing a ciggarette from your brothers packet when he is not around to ask persmission, and stealing all the possesion from another persons house are both stealing, but how is it that us humans will morally accept one action and instantly damn the other action.

This is an awful comparison. First, the values of the two thefts are widely disparate.  Second, there is no B&E in the first example, certainly no criminal trespass, little or no potential of violence. Are you being deliberately obtuse or just using such wildly different examples, then positing them as to be  similar, to make a point I cannot see?

[WMLute]

The fact that the human being can have the representation "I" raises him infinitely above all the other beings on earth. By this he is a person....that is, a being altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one's discretion." (Kant, Lectures on Anthropology, 7, 127)

A lower animal's attention is fixed on the world. Its perceptions are its beliefs and its desires are its will. It is engaged in conscious activities, but it is not conscious of them. That is, they are not the objects of its attention. But we human animals turn our attention on to our perceptions and desires themselves, on to our own mental activities, and we are conscious ofthem. That is why we can think about them…

And this sets us a problem that no other animal has. It is the problem of the normative.... The reflective mind cannot settle for perception and desire, not just as such. It needs a reason. (Korsgaard, 1996, 93)

If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. (Kant, Lectures on Ethics, 240)

Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. [original emphasis] ... The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated ... upon the same footing as ... animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? (Bentham 1781)

couple interesting views here.

<----was married to a philosopher for over 10years.

[Brenjen]

Well, I don't really get what you're driving at but, nature has no morals, it survival of the fittest for all living creatures. Human laws & morality seldom converge even when they are morality laws, go figure.

 Even in the world of the human animal it's survival of the fittest, sure society has social programs that prop up the weak but to what end? In a few years there won't be any of the fittest left & the only ones that are left will be the ones that need propped up. Then in the natural order of things what happens? They die out, then the ones that were faking it will get busy making their way or get busy dieing & we'll have to do it all again because as we all know, history repeats itself.

 Just look at the corrupt govt. of Louisiana & it's welfare population. The big hurricane hit & even though they knew for decades the levees wouldn't hold that much storm surge & they knew for a week the storm was coming they still waited for the govt. to come & give them a free air conditioned ride out of the path of it.

 Amid all the cries of racism & failure on the federal level, it was the local govt. that was responsible, they told the people at the federal level the levees had held some 6 hours after they had breached...but the propped up welfare populace of the city re-elected those same local politicians & continue to blame the federal govt. & not only that; now those same people are claiming the federal govt. blew up the levees with explosives to cause the damage!

 No, I say there are no morals in nature & survival of the fittest should be the only way any of us get by & laws are only obeyed by good people who don't need laws in the first place. The ones who break the laws are not concerned with the consequences anyway.

[Blooz]

Value.

The value of an object or being determines whether it is saved or destroyed.

[midnight Target]

Somebody needs to change the bong water.

[lukster]

If you will ask the difference between man and insect then why not man and plant or rock?

[Apeking]

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

Nature does not have a moral code. It does not think or feel. Human law is a collection of customs, prejudices, technicalities and fashions. It is not scientific. It is hard to think of a universe without law or morals because we are so used to the idea of both.

"how is crushing an insect and murdering a human any different?"

It is not illegal to crush an insect under British law, at least unless the insect is very rare or you crush it in a manner judged inhumane by a court. There is no law or moral code beyond that which we make for ourself. There is no law beyond human law. The only judges are human beings and the only laws are human laws. There is no higher judge and no universal moral standard. Animals do not punish each other for killing and eating other animals. Several human societies have legalised the killing of other human beings. If human society valued the life of insects over the life of people, we would change the law so that it would be unlawful and immoral to crush an insect. If human society enjoyed killing then we would legalise killing. The Romans entertained themselves by watching real human beings hack each other to death with axes and swords.

The last man on Earth will have no law or moral code except that which he makes for himself. And after he dies there will no law or moral code or any concept of either. The sun will shine down on the empty earth and there will no right or wrong, or anything except for packets of energy decaying forever into almost nothingness.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV



stealing a ciggarette from your brothers packet when he is not around to ask persmission, and stealing all the possesion from another persons house are both stealing, but how is it that us humans will morally accept one action and instantly damn the other action.



 

I accept neither action.

1st if I did smoke my little brother would have got a slap up side the head.
Then told next time wait and ask.  Because he needs to learn not to mess with other peoples stuff.  This is where the thief mentality starts.

Stealing all possessions ehh  lock em up  for as long as possible.
See lvl of punishment fits the crime.

Nope bat stilll disagree with ya.

Bronk

[Vudak]

I've fished since I was old enough to hold a rod.  Back when I was younger, I saw the trophies my uncle had up on the wall, and so when I finally caught some real keepers, I had them mounted too.

I have to say, I regret doing that.  Now I'm all catch-and-release, and even feel pretty bad about using live bait (I get over that pretty quick if the fishing is slow though )

That said, I don't feel anywhere near as bad for doing that as I would for killing another human, or a human-like animal such as a dog.

I don't know why that is, but that's just the way it is.

[storch]

Originally posted by Vudak

That said, I don't feel anywhere near as bad for doing that as I would for killing another human, or a human-like animal such as a dog.

dating an ugly girl huh?

[Vudak]

Originally posted by storch
dating an ugly girl huh?

No, but we've all been there.  Well, except the teetolarers, anyway

I just feel bad killing animals.  Not that I don't eat them or such.  It's just I don't really feel good about killing them.

[B@tfinkV]

nature does have its own moral code that is seperated from 'human morals'.




a lion on the plains does not kill the antelope because it stands on his soil.

if he is not hungry the lion will rest peacefully 50yrds from a herd of lazy grazing 'prey' who will not worry that the lion should attack them just because he feels like it.


the lions moral code is of natural progression and thus a pure code denoted not by descisions, but by nature and the age old concepts implanted in the predators mind.


when the lion is hungry, he will attack and kill the same antelopes becuase he must do so to survive.



the lion knows the difference betwen 'right and wrong' on nature's terms.


even this obvious example clearly shows to me that nature has a moral code totaly seperate from what we call 'human morals'






the funny thing is, at the dawn of the human race, the moral codes followed by these arrogant two legged creatures was exactly the same as the lion's natural moral code.


over millenia, us humans have forgoten that nature provides us with a built in moral code, and we have invented our own 'human code'  and tried to take credit for the many different variations and evolutions of the original natural code.


now we have 'nature's code' and 'human morals' and we pretend to express that as humans we are above other creatures intelectually because we have decided our own moral limitations.

we fail to see that the natural order of things that almost every other creature follows to the letter, was a far better code of conduct than anything we have since conceived.








" why dont you relate them to plants and rocks, if you realate this question to insects"

half and half


plants are alive, lifeforms with the same rights to exist as any human.

on the other hand

rocks are monuments to matter that once was alive, but is long since dead and returned to its natural state.


in saying that, the cycle of life is started in rock, grows into a living being, and uses itself up and returns to rock, ready for the next time the life energy contained deep within the rock's atoms can find a way to actively 'live' again, and die, and return to rock.

so

hurt plants = bad

hurt rocks =  not easy




human moral code = short lived and made up to suit our circumstances, changed and taylored to every need to keep ourselves within the guidelines.

natural moral code = will live on untill life itself dies, and will not change its rule book once from creation to destruction.