Interesting name for this forum

[shakushinnen]

Hi,
"Ethics, morality, and justice" - three human inventions that don't exist in any other realm of nature.
John

 

[Baron Max]

Hi, "Ethics, morality, and justice" - three human inventions that don't exist in any other realm of nature.
John

Sure it does! That you don't or can't recognize it as such doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Check out animals in the wild, and you'll see that they clearly have a defined set of morals, ethics and justice.

I doubt that you'll find it all written out in big, thick, legal books for the animals, but then it's only because of man's propensity to violate all of society's rules and go against the grain that it's written down at all.

It's my contention that all humans know right from wrong, some instinctively, some by social teaching, but they know right from wrong. I think even those that we label as sociopaths and psychopaths know what they're doing is wrong ....but they do them anyway because they get a thrill out of it.

Baron Max

 

[Prince_James]

If it is only human, does it matter? We are humans, therefore it includes us.

 

[Sauna]

It's my contention that all humans know right from wrong, some instinctively, some by social teaching, but they know right from wrong. I think even those that we label as sociopaths and psychopaths know what they're doing is wrong ....but they do them anyway because they get a thrill out of it.

Now who's the idealist?

if they all know what's right and wrong anyway, let's have done with the legal system, never mind the cost of the trials, just ask anybody handy what their opinion is.

 

[Baron Max]

if they all know what's right and wrong anyway, let's have done with the legal system, never mind the cost of the trials, just ask anybody handy what their opinion is.

See? You even fail to realize that the trial by jury is actually asking the members of the jury for their opinion! What else in life do you fail to realize?

Baron Max

 

[spidergoat]

The great apes have a strong sense of ethics. If you take their banana away, they will remember it and seek justice upon you later.

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Baron,
What makes you think that animals, aside from mankind of course, live by morals, ethics, and justice? Please be specific. I grant you, that just because I don't recognize it, isn't proof that it doesn't exist; but I don't see any evidence to entertain the notion.
Re the contention that humans know right from wrong. I'm not so sure. The study of primtive, and indeed modern, societies shows a very broad range of acceptable behaviours. When I studied anthropology I was shocked at the practices some societies accept as normal, practices that by most modern standards would be considered barbaric. So I'm thinking that right and wrong, along with morals, ethics, and justice, are very much a matter of who and when.
John

 

[Baron Max]

Hi Baron, What makes you think that animals, aside from mankind of course, live by morals, ethics, and justice? Please be specific.

Everyone that I know of who has studied animals in the wild will tell you the same thing! If you watch animals shows on PBS you can't miss it (even if you might not recognize it for what it is).

How, for example, could animals even live together in, say, lion prides or packs of wolves or herds of wildebeests if they didn't have a basis ethical code for treating their fellows? It would be mass hysteria and uncontrollable anarchy! In fact, that there is even such a thing as a "pack" or "herd" speaks volumes for normal standards of ethical behavior.

Justice? Many animal "groups" will drive out a member that doesn't live up to the basic standards of the "group". Wolf packs are prime examples of that "justice" ...the pack leader and the followers will attack the "criminal" and drive them out and keep them out. The criminal soon dies on it's own.

When I studied anthropology I was shocked at the practices some societies accept as normal, practices that by most modern standards would be considered barbaric. So I'm thinking that right and wrong, along with morals, ethics, and justice, are very much a matter of who and when.

Of course! Moral and ethics are established by the people of the groups, tribes or whatever. They didn't ask for your approval! Nor anyone else's approval. What they felt/feel is ethical and moral is what it is ....and that's no different to our own modern society. As a group, we deem what our morals and ethics are to be, and justice is determined for violating those laws. We didn't ask, for example, any of the tribes in deepest, darkest Amazonia, did we? Why not?

10,000 years from now, someone might dig us up and be shocked at some of our morals and ethical standards, but that doens't make them wrong for us, now at this time, does it?

Baron Max

 

[Sauna]

See? You even fail to realize that the trial by jury is actually asking the members of the jury for their opinion! What else in life do you fail to realize?

Baron Max

How ingeniously silly!

Juries are not "anybody handy". Juries are qualified.

A policeman involved with the investigation would not be permitted to sit on a jury, nor would the defendant or his
wife.

Everyone that I know of who has studied animals in the wild will tell you the same thing! If you watch animals shows on PBS you can't miss it (even if you might not recognize it for what it is).

How, for example, could animals even live together in, say, lion prides or packs of wolves or herds of wildebeests if they didn't have a basis ethical code for treating their fellows? It would be mass hysteria and uncontrollable anarchy! In fact, that there is even such a thing as a "pack" or "herd" speaks volumes for normal standards of ethical behavior.

Justice? Many animal "groups" will drive out a member that doesn't live up to the basic standards of the "group". Wolf packs are prime examples of that "justice" ...the pack leader and the followers will attack the "criminal" and drive them out and keep them out. The criminal soon dies on it's own.

This is true, the corollary being the instinctive nature of human ethics, notoriously difficult to justify in purely rational terms.

 

[Baron Max]

Juries are not "anybody handy". Juries are qualified.

Yeah, they have to be breathing AND they have to have a driver's license. In some states, they don't even have to have a driver's license. Whhooopee-dee-doo ...truly qualified alright!

A policeman involved with the investigation would not be permitted to sit on a jury, nor would the defendant or his wife.

Yeah, that really, really narrows down the field of potential jurors, don't it?!

This is true, the corollary being the instinctive nature of human ethics, notoriously difficult to justify in purely rational terms.

It might be difficult, but try this: With a basic knowledge of human interaction in the real/normal world, try to imagine what it would be like to remove any and all laws, law enforcement, courts and judges, and the threat of imprisonment or banishment. Anyone with even a meager imagination can readily see how things would deteriorate rapidly and at a geometric progression.

The moral of the exercise? Humans can't live together without the force of arms and the threat of punishment ...for all their proclaimed intelligence! While at the same time, most animals enjoy a perfectly peaceful existence.

Baron Max

 

[one_raven]

The moral of the exercise? Humans can't live together without the force of arms and the threat of punishment ...for all their proclaimed intelligence! While at the same time, most animals enjoy a perfectly peaceful existence.

Or perhaps it means that if humans lived like the other animals we would live in a much more peaceful existence.
Perhaps it is the human system of rules, regulation, written laws, crime and punishment that drives us disobey rules.

 

[Baron Max]

Or perhaps it means that if humans lived like the other animals we would live in a much more peaceful existence.
Perhaps it is the human system of rules, regulation, written laws, crime and punishment that drives us disobey rules.

And perhaps you don't fully grasp human history and pre-history! Why, for example, do you think those laws and rules and regulations were instituted in the very first place?

No, Raven, you're thinking wrongly and, worse, without any substantive evidence or data. I.e., you're just basing your thoughts on daydreams rather than reality.

Baron Max

 

[one_raven]

Are humans animals?

 

[one_raven]

Why do you not think that humans, if we did not have written laws, technology, weapons and the form of government we have now - and instead followed pack rules and relatively anarchic social order developed from experience we could not survive?
What would stop us from developing a system similar to other wild great apes, if we did not have technology?

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Baron,
O.K I'll keep an open mind on the subject, although I'm not convinced that your argument is proof, or even suggestive, of the existence of a moral code. What then do you think is the defining characteristic(s) of a moral code? Do you think that insects have a moral code, or a sense of right and wrong?
"10,000 years from now, someone might dig us up and be shocked at some of our morals and ethical standards, but that doens't make them wrong for us, now at this time, does it?" This is precisely my point. These people would probably consider behaviour, that we consider quite normal, wrong or bizarre. So you would agree then that the criteria for a moral code do not transcent societies, and are very specific to the society ones lives in? Which begs the question - Are right and wrong society dependent and not instinctual, but learned? What are your thoughts?
John

 

[Baron Max]

Why do you not think that humans, if we did not have written laws, technology, weapons and the form of government we have now - and instead followed pack rules and relatively anarchic social order developed from experience we could not survive?

For the very reason that we adopted a complex system of laws in the very, very first place! If we could have survived so easily without laws, then humans would have never instituted all those controlling laws. Humans are, if you'll excuse the expression, mean, nasty, fuckin' animals! (And I apologize to all of the higher forms of animal life!).

What would stop us from developing a system similar to other wild great apes, if we did not have technology?

Same-o, same-o. Without a written form of laws, the bullies of the tribe would tear the weak ones to shreds! And while the great apes would gang up on the bullies and drive them out of the tribe, humans would not! In fact, humans would stand around and watch the bullies tear the weak ones apart and do nothing to stop it ....just like they do now!

I'll ask you again, just so you don't forget to answer; Why did humans institute so many complex laws and rules if they didn't need them to survive?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

So you would agree then that the criteria for a moral code do not transcent societies, and are very specific to the society ones lives in?

One of the problems in discussing this issue is the complexity of what we normally call "moral codes". In other words, one moral code might well be instinctive, yet another code within the same society, might be socially instituted and learned. See?

Let me say one thing that I've been pondering for ages. I think, I think, that lying is instinctively immoral in humans. And by "lying", I don't mean anything about truth, I mean "LYING=the willful intent to deceive" (so a person could actually be saying something that was true, but if he was intentionally trying to deceive someone, then it's a lie).

I know of no society, no tribe, no group of humans, and probably no group of animals, that would consider lying to ones own fellows as a moral thing to do. Now lying to the enemy? Oh, that's okay! But not lying to ones fellows, ones tribal members, etc.

I think another one might be intentionally harming ones fellows without any cause or justification. I.e., just hauling off and smacking the fuck out of ones tribal member. That just isn't done, isn't acceptable in any society that I know of or have ever heard of.

Now ...beyond those few possiblities, I think humans have created their own extended moral code so as to make the code so complex as to be almost meaningless to discuss. There's so many minor bullshit issues that cloud the entire concept of morals for humans. Animals don't have that ...theirs is simple without much, if any, complexity to it. And perhaps that's why animals get along so well?? They don't sit around and discuss their moral codes ad nauseum 'cause they already know it.

Are right and wrong society dependent and not instinctual, but learned? What are your thoughts?

I think you can see by the above comments that i think it's both ...but with humans, they've complicated the issue of morals to the point that discussing them is all but impossible. Almost any moral "law" that you want to bring up, someone in the group will "prove" that it's not or that it is moral!

I mentioned "lying" above .....and my guess is that you, or someone else, will post a response "proving" that lies are okay (if they're just little ones, or if they don't hurt anyone, etc.). See how complex humans can make things? When a simple law would work ...."It's wrong to deceive your friends and tribal members"

Baron Max

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Baron,
O.K. Thanks for your thoughts. The discussion was stimulating. You make some good points.
John

 

[superluminal]

There are many theories and lots of observation to back up the development of morals and ethics in non-human animals. Ours are just formalized using a well developed language that other animals do not possess. Google it. Learn something.

P.S. Right on the mark Baron.

 

[one_raven]

Baron Max,
How did the humans survive for so long without them, then?
It doesn't make sense to me that humans couldn't survive without written laws and weapons to back them up, yet we survived for many years without such things.