Moral law in Humans and other animals

[The Reality Salesman01]

Some people tend to think that we humans are special in that since we are "wired" to seek out that which is most advantageous to the survival of our species and that of our offspring, that on an "animal level" or an Atheistic level, there is no reason to explain why we are able to override those urges and act differently. Without being capable of recognizing some Divine Moral Law, how else can Atheists account for why we act one way when we are wired to act another? Why do we ignore our basic animalistic sense of eat or be eaten, and then behave in way that is in line with what we describe as "ought"?

If I brought a wild lion into my home, my family would be savagely torn to shreds in a short matter of time. There's not a single person that considers it murder if that were to happen because the Lion would simply be acting in a manner that is consistent with its nature. While it's true that dogs are capable of doing the same thing, I want to point out that one is inevitably going to occur while the other is quite scarce. Dogs are extremely common household pets while Lions are certainly not. My 135 lb beast of a dog is perfectly capable of shredding my family in a similar fashion and yet, I'm not in the least bit concerned of that being a likely event. My dog is an animal, just like me, and I too have an instinct that tells me that I ought not kill the members in the society in which I occupy. If killing out of instinct for survival is something that only humans are able to turn on and off, and this ability is a property given exclusively to humans in order to separate us from the "animals", then why is my dog so goddamned moral?

This is Bernie:

---

---

---

---

---

---

[reed]

Some people tend to think that we humans are special in that since we are "wired" to seek out that which is most advantageous to the survival of our species and that of our offspring, that on an "animal level" or an Atheistic level, there is no reason to explain why we are able to override those urges and act differently.

Er, why is it assumed that what is most advantageous to our survival is selfishness or that dominating/harming other creatures is natural and a sign of "fitness"? Cooperation and altruism is a perfectly valid evolutionary strategy. Violence is risky and not something to be engaged in lightly. Cheating others in a social group is risky and not something to be engaged in lightly. That's the foundation of our moral impulses. When we expand our moral horizons, it's co-opting or strengthening mechanisms that are already there, isn't it?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Yeah, I'll admit that had been drinking for a bit before being inspired to write this. I dont think the act of social compliance in my dog would be recognized as morality in any intellectual domain but, theres something to be said about the fact that his ancestors would act differently and wouldn't hesitate for a moment to rip the food from my hand or even rip my hand off for food if so inclined. In order for human morality to have a natural explanation, other animals being able to demonstrate social behavior to a mutual advantage is all you need. Humans are not special in this regard and while there is no answer to why my dog "ought" to behave in the way he does, that hasn't the slightest relevance to the fact that he nonetheless does and there are objectively better and more beneficial reasons for him to continue to do so.

[abaris]

Er, why is it assumed that what is most advantageous to our survival is selfishness or that dominating/harming other creatures is natural and a sign of "fitness"? Cooperation and altruism is a perfectly valid evolutionary strategy. Violence is risky and not something to be engaged in lightly. Cheating others in a social group is risky and not something to be engaged in lightly. That's the foundation of our moral impulses. When we expand our moral horizons, it's co-opting or strengthening mechanisms that are already there, isn't it?

Within your own group. We're closely related to chimps and while violence among their own groups are rare, they go out of their way to wage war on a different group of chimps.

That's what we're dealing with when it comes to our heritage.

Also the lion example has it's exemptions. There are instances with lions being saved by certain humans and the animal remembered them fondly even years later and certainly didn't view them as their next meal.

As for dogs, there are pretty recent scientific discoveries about their real cognitive potential. Look up the research of Professor Hare and his dognition center. To compare them to predators is fundamentally wrong, since their evolution and socialisation is closely linked to our own species.

[reed]

Within your own group. We're closely related to chimps and while violence among their own groups are rare, they go out of their way to wage war on a different group of chimps.

That's what we're dealing with when it comes to our heritage.

I wouldn't say they go out of their way.

After studying 18 communities for a total of 426 years (or 23 years per community, on average), Wilson et al. directly observed only 15 intercommunity killings of weaned victims. That comes to one killing every 28 years in a typical community–or one every 15 years if 14 “inferred” killings of weaned chimps are included.

As for dogs, there are pretty recent scientific discoveries about their real cognitive potential. Look up the research of Professor Hare and his dognition center. To compare them to predators is fundamentally wrong, since their evolution and socialisation is closely linked to our own species.

I think the last sentence is the most relevant point. The whole act of domestication is evolution by artificial selection.

[Brian37]

Morals are not laws. "Moral" is a description of behavior we observe in nature. Evolution is a process and the reality is that is an uncaring process because it is not a thinking process. Our species cognition is an outcome of that process that gives us a better ability to concern ourselves with issues of cooperation or force. Both cooperation and force work.

We do see our empathy and cruelty in other species. Lions will kill rival cubs not of their own loins. But we also see the females share protection of cubs that are not theirs. The killer whale eats seals, the one being chased and eaten if it had human cognition would not see that as "moral", but the killer whale needs to eat to survive.

We have to stop looking at morals in ideological terms and look at them as natural. We do have empathy because that is part of evolution. We do compete for resources as well, because if we did not, we would not survive. So the natural usage I would put in the ability to put common existence over fear of the other.

We will not always agree or even like each other. But there is not one country without prisons, and most humans would feel threatened if you messed with their family or kids or property. Knowing that common existence can go a long way in non violent problem solving while still allowing for the bitching.

[tantric]

This is a moral law, showing the average benefit to a reciprocal altruist in a society of doves, who can only share and hawks, who can only fight. The RA thus shares with doves and fights with hawks. RA = p(1/2B-C) - 1/2(1-p)B where B=potential value and C=cost of conflict and p=the population, expressed as percentage of hawks.

Itś math, not god.

That being said, the If the aliens ever do come to judge us, this - a fireman risking his life to save a cat, is the reason we will be spared.

[ManMachine]

Some people tend to think that we humans are special in that since we are "wired" to seek out that which is most advantageous to the survival of our species and that of our offspring, that on an "animal level" or an Atheistic level, there is no reason to explain why we are able to override those urges and act differently. Without being capable of recognizing some Divine Moral Law, how else can Atheists account for why we act one way when we are wired to act another? Why do we ignore our basic animalistic sense of eat or be eaten, and then behave in way that is in line with what we describe as "ought"?

If I brought a wild lion into my home, my family would be savagely torn to shreds in a short matter of time. There's not a single person that considers it murder if that were to happen because the Lion would simply be acting in a manner that is consistent with its nature. While it's true that dogs are capable of doing the same thing, I want to point out that one is inevitably going to occur while the other is quite scarce. Dogs are extremely common household pets while Lions are certainly not. My 135 lb beast of a dog is perfectly capable of shredding my family in a similar fashion and yet, I'm not in the least bit concerned of that being a likely event. My dog is an animal, just like me, and I too have an instinct that tells me that I ought not kill the members in the society in which I occupy. If killing out of instinct for survival is something that only humans are able to turn on and off, and this ability is a property given exclusively to humans in order to separate us from the "animals", then why is my dog so goddamned moral?

This is Bernie:

---

---

---

---

---

---

It's an error to believe we do 'ignore our basic animalistic sense of eat or be eaten', we just do it in a very strategic way. We might not recognise what we do as 'animal' but we are animals, evolution tells us this and any sense that we are 'special' of 'different' is just hubris.

In answer to your question, your dog is a clever strategist and recognises the needs of the pack even though some of that pack is human.

MM

[The Reality Salesman01]

It's an error to believe we do 'ignore our basic animalistic sense of eat or be eaten', we just do it in a very strategic way. We might not recognise what we do as 'animal' but we are animals, evolution tells us this and any sense that we are 'special' of 'different' is just hubris.

In answer to your question, your dog is a clever strategist and recognises the needs of the pack even though some of that pack is human.

MM

Couldn't it be argued that we too are just clever strategists who recognize that it's wiser not to disrupt the heard?

[Anomalocaris]

If the aliens ever do come to judge us, this - a fireman risking his life to save a cat, is the reason we will be spared.

It could just as easily be the reason why aliens would judge us unworthy of surviving the cat race which they meant to exterminate.