(September 24, 2013 at 7:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If that were so then you would see individual members of various species acting in ways that go contrary to their animal nature. That is never the case. Animals always act according to their animal instinct.

No. I would throw myself in front
of a speeding vehicle if it meant I
could save my child from being hit.

(September 24, 2013 at 12:32 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 7:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If that were so then you would see individual members of various species acting in ways that go contrary to their animal nature. That is never the case. Animals always act according to their animal instinct.

No. I would throw myself in front
of a speeding vehicle if it meant I
could save my child from being hit.

But would you do it for a second cousin?

(September 23, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Jiggerj Wrote: Within either a pack of wolves or lions, when animals that are low in the pecking order try to eat with the alphas, the alphas will snap at them or chase them off. Are the alphas teaching these subordinates that it is wrong to eat with them?

I have thought about this. I decided that every animal that lives in a group has some understanding of morality because every animal that lives in a group needs to treat the others with respect and do what is best for the group. Morality is a human word, with a human definition, and humans are just a small part of nature, but our understanding of morality proves there is morality in nature, and that other animals who live in groups understand it although not in our words which are human.

(September 24, 2013 at 12:33 pm)max-greece Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 12:32 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: No. I would throw myself in front
of a speeding vehicle if it meant I
could save my child from being hit.

But would you do it for a second cousin?

I have a young second cousin, we'll call
her "Sam". Sam has recently become
engaged to her wonderful boyfriend of
nine years. I am not close with Sam,
but I would say that I am fond of her. She has
a bright future ahead of her. She is smart,
well educated, attractive and confident. I
am not sure how I would rerspond if
I were in a position where her life were
in eminent danger, and I, by intervening
would be killed while saving her life. My reflex
would be to attempt to save her. My intent
would be to avoid harm myself as well.

(September 23, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Jiggerj Wrote: Within either a pack of wolves or lions, when animals that are low in the pecking order try to eat with the alphas, the alphas will snap at them or chase them off. Are the alphas teaching these subordinates that it is wrong to eat with them?

They are probably trying to keep them hungry and underfed so they are weaker and less likely to successfully breed ensuring that their (the Alpha's) DNA gets passed onto the next generation and not the subordinates.

Yay, evolution

(September 24, 2013 at 7:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If that were so then you would see individual members of various species acting in ways that go contrary to their animal nature. That is never the case. Animals always act according to their animal instinct. For that matter, many humans seem incapable of transcending their own animal instincts. Only Man has the intellect capable of discerning moral principles and formulating codes of behaviour - be it the "golden rule", categorical imperatives, or simple taboos.

You are confusing 'nature' with 'instinct'. An entity cannot act contrary to its nature. Rather, in whatever way it acts, it is a part of its nature.

Therefore, when I say 'morality in nature' I do not mean 'morality in instinct'. And while animals mostly do act according to their instinct, they are still capable of transcending it - and that is especially true for humans.

Further, even if we equate nature with instinct, man's intellect would still be capable of formulating moral principles and codes of behavior on basis of those instincts and thus that morality would have its basis in nature/instinct.

(September 24, 2013 at 7:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Not in any meaningful sense related to choice and responsibility.

Having a basis in nature does not exclude choice and responsibility.

(September 23, 2013 at 8:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If the only basis of morality in nature comes from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" then it's not really any kind of morality at all. Welcome to naturalism.

You can base morality on survival of the fittest especially if you evolve upon the idea a bit, wink wink, nudge nudge. It is hard to determine whether nature as a whole has morality. But humans are a part of nature and they have morality. So therefore nature has morality. As humans we live in large groups, morality is necessary as a part of the survival of the group. Humans wouldn't last long in groups if nobody had morality. Therefore, morality is a basic instinct. Even sardines don't go around killing each other, so I would wager that they have morality too, in their complex fish society.

(September 24, 2013 at 10:33 am)whateverist Wrote: I suspect you mean in the sense that the feeling of must or must not in human morality probably is built on something instinctual. No doubt these inhibitive impulses have been fine tuned by nature through evolution in pro-social directions for the most part. All the rationalizing and systematizing of course come in secondarily.

No, I don't. Most certainly not.

What I mean is that one may have an instinctual sense of "must or must not" - but this instinctual sense does not qualify for human morality. However, we can build a code of behavior based on these instincts and that would qualify as morality. Or we can ignore them altogether and build it on something else altogether. It is the rationalization and systematization that gives rise to morality - not the existence of instincts.

(September 24, 2013 at 7:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: [quote='genkaus' pid='510584' dateline='1379992457']Even if the only If that were so then you would see individual members of various species acting in ways that go contrary to their animal nature. That is never the case.

I dunno, Chad. Have a look at this lion taking care of a baby antelope. If that doesn't go against the nature of a lion I don't what does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZw-1BfHFKM

(September 24, 2013 at 7:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(September 23, 2013 at 11:14 pm)genkaus Wrote: Even if the only basis of morality in nature was from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" - which is most emphatically not the case...

If that were so then you would see individual members of various species acting in ways that go contrary to their animal nature. That is never the case. Animals always act according to their animal instinct. For that matter, many humans seem incapable of transcending their own animal instincts. Only Man has the intellect capable of discerning moral principles and formulating codes of behaviour - be it the "golden rule", categorical imperatives, or simple taboos.

(September 23, 2013 at 11:14 pm)genkaus Wrote: - it'd still be a kind of morality.

Not in any meaningful sense related to choice and responsibility.

I always see humans acting according to their animal instinct too. There is no transcending your animal instinct, you're a human, deal with it, you're taken care of by the Earth and sustained by it, why do you want to transcend it, don't you like the Earth? The Earth... is there. I think it's beautiful.

---

(September 24, 2013 at 6:50 pm)Jiggerj Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 7:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: [quote='genkaus' pid='510584' dateline='1379992457']Even if the only If that were so then you would see individual members of various species acting in ways that go contrary to their animal nature. That is never the case.

I dunno, Chad. Have a look at this lion taking care of a baby antelope. If that doesn't go against the nature of a lion I don't what does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZw-1BfHFKM

We raise pigs and then we kill them for food. Perhaps this is the first step towards lions learning how to domesticate animals. Intriguing.