Nature and Morality

[scott3x]

This post is in response to theobserver's post 60 in the Rules concerning... thread in the SF Open Government forum.

Moving my response to theobserver's post here as the subject matter was interesting but clearly off topic where it was.

OK, so you are a liar. The laws of nature say that if I want something, I take it, and deal with the consequences. Now, I really doubt you think it's OK to get beaten up and robbed by someone bigger than you. I doubt you would be philosophical after some guy beats the crap out of you and takes every you have ever worked for, leaving you crippled.

You want protection, and and to adhere to some vague personal interpretation of you think is nature. IE, you re talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

No one can steal anything from me. I don't have anything other than my life.

Somehow, I don't think that's -quite- accurate. Unless you're living in a shelter or with the open sky as your roof, are writing this on a public computer and you're going to a drop in for lunch

People often forget the beauty of having nothing. Insecurities creep in and everyone end up buying stupid shit. Then they want protection. It would have been way easier if everyone had nothing or everyone had the same thing. Ownership causes way too much of problems. Its all social circumstances. So probably you need to step outside of it before you even try to comprehend what am talking about.

I don't think that ownership per se is the problem; nature certainly has the concept of ownership well defined at times, such as the harems of certain male animals. I think the problem is when too few own too much. From what I've seen of history, this always ends in only one way; revolution. The U.S. may not be the roman empire, but it has many similar traits. I think there's no mistaking that it's an empire in decline, just as the roman empire declined and was then destroyed, not just from outside, but from within as well.

I'm not always so impressed with nature; I think a far better metric is whether an action is beneficial, not whether it can be seen as natural.

I used to be like that. The more i learned, the more i began to appreciate the perfection in nature.

I think that by the best metric, humans are completely a part of nature. If you are referring to nature -other- then human nature, however, I would still argue that there are some aspects of the animal kingdom that I would much rather do without. Again, I think the metric should be what is beneficial for people, not what is 'natural'.

Trouble is mostly with humans. Human society is crippled with their limited understanding of nature. We think nature should be working the way it benefits us. Friction gets lesser and lesser when you learn nature the way it is. That includes human nature as well. When you know why a person acts the way he acts and why you feel the way you feel, things are way too easy to understand.

I agree that trying to understand why people act the way they act is a very good thing. The same thing with knowing why we feel the way we feel. This doesn't mean we can always accomplish either of these things all the time, but I certainly believe they're worthy things to strive for.

 

[theobserver]

Somehow, I don't think that's -quite- accurate. Unless you're living in a shelter or with the open sky as your roof, are writing this on a public computer and you're going to a drop in for lunch

It s not. I do own a few essential things needed for communication. And that too only because I have to live within this society for a while till i finish what i think i will have to do.

I don't think that ownership per se is the problem; nature certainly has the concept of ownership well defined at times, such as the harems of certain male animals. I think the problem is when too few own too much. From what I've seen of history, this always ends in only one way; revolution. The U.S. may not be the roman empire, but it has many similar traits. I think there's no mistaking that it's an empire in decline, just as the roman empire declined and was then destroyed, not just from outside, but from within as well.

You are quite close to one of the roots of all mankind's problem - women. If something or someone cannot be owned by a person alone, what do they do? they seek ways to get it. rest is history.

Again, I think the metric should be what is beneficial for people, not what is 'natural'.

No man made system or ideologies has benefitted humans for ever. Everything humans have made have fell. Empires, ideologies, religions, economic models and so on. Seeking ways which only benefit us unbalances the system we depend on. Learning to control our greed and prevent us from seeking only beneficial factors is what brings stability.

I agree that trying to understand why people act the way they act is a very good thing. The same thing with knowing why we feel the way we feel. This doesn't mean we can always accomplish either of these things all the time, but I certainly believe they're worthy things to strive for.

That's what I learned before I learned anything else. Its the most essential knowledge imho because that's the very foundation for understanding rest of the nature.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to theobserver's post 62 in the "Rules concerning..." thread in the SF Open Government Forum.

although I think he may not have seen that nature doesn't always do the right thing.

What you mean by the right thing?

This, for instance:
Love and Murder Among the Chimps

 

[scott3x]

Somehow, I don't think that's -quite- accurate. Unless you're living in a shelter or with the open sky as your roof, are writing this on a public computer and you're going to a drop in for lunch

It's not. I do own a few essential things needed for communication. And that too only because I have to live within this society for a while till i finish what i think i will have to do.

What do you think you have to do ?

I don't think that ownership per se is the problem; nature certainly has the concept of ownership well defined at times, such as the harems of certain male animals. I think the problem is when too few own too much. From what I've seen of history, this always ends in only one way; revolution. The U.S. may not be the roman empire, but it has many similar traits. I think there's no mistaking that it's an empire in decline, just as the roman empire declined and was then destroyed, not just from outside, but from within as well.

You are quite close to one of the roots of all mankind's problem - women. If something or someone cannot be owned by a person alone, what do they do? they seek ways to get it. rest is history.

Nods; of all things people would like to 'own', other people are ofcourse on the top of the list. I think this can frequently lead to problems. Have you read Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land? It's a science fiction novel, but I find many of the ideas that he proposed in it to be quite good.

Again, I think the metric should be what is beneficial for people, not what is 'natural'.

No man made system or ideologies has benefitted humans for ever. Everything humans have made have fell. Empires, ideologies, religions, economic models and so on. Seeking ways which only benefit us unbalances the system we depend on. Learning to control our greed and prevent us from seeking only beneficial factors is what brings stability.

I can agree with this. However, that doesn't take away from my point .

I agree that trying to understand why people act the way they act is a very good thing. The same thing with knowing why we feel the way we feel. This doesn't mean we can always accomplish either of these things all the time, but I certainly believe they're worthy things to strive for.

That's what I learned before I learned anything else. Its the most essential knowledge imho because that's the very foundation for understanding rest of the nature.

You may just be right there .