Which is a Better Foundation for Morality, Nature or Belief in God?

[lunamoth]

there are so many examples i could give

animals are completely racist for a start. If you are not from their herd, they do not like you at all. See 'Meerkat Manor' for examples of how rival clans fight each other, steal each others houses & kill each others babies. Moral?

Or how about how male bears will kill the cubs of a female just so he can mate with her. While she has her cubs with her, she will not come into season. So male bears will stalk a female with its cubs and kill the cubs just so he can mate with her. Moral?

I think the difference, Pegg, is that we don't view these actions by animals as immoral, but as amoral.

The difference between humans and other animals is that we judge and value behavior (by humans) as moral, or not.

 

[Noaidi]

there are so many examples i could give

animals are completely racist for a start. If you are not from their herd, they do not like you at all. See 'Meerkat Manor' for examples of how rival clans fight each other, steal each others houses & kill each others babies. Moral?

Or how about how male bears will kill the cubs of a female just so he can mate with her. While she has her cubs with her, she will not come into season. So male bears will stalk a female with its cubs and kill the cubs just so he can mate with her. Moral?

Tell me, how much ethology have you studied, Pegg?

 

[Enoughie]

if we took our morality from nature, we'd have very little morality at all

animals live to breed and keep their territory....in the jungle its every animal for himself, only the strong survive. I cant see much morality in that lifestyle.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. It is like saying that since Christians over the last 2000 years committed mass murder, pillage, rape, torture, and so on then if we took our morality from Christianity we'd have very little morality at all.

Would you agree with such statement?

You cannot say that there's no morality in nature based on observing how some animals behave, just like you cannot claim there's no morality in Christianity based on observing how some Christians behave.

However, if you were to seriously study nature (evolutionary biology) you'd be able to derive the values of freedom, equality, honesty, and generosity from nature. Just like I do here: If Not God, Where Do Our Values Come From? : Freedom and Nature | Natural Philosophy of Life

Would you say that there's "very little morality" in the natural values of generosity, honesty, equality, and freedom? What more is there to morality?

____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Pegg]

I think the difference, Pegg, is that we don't view these actions by animals as immoral, but as amoral.

The difference between humans and other animals is that we judge and value behavior as moral, or not.

oh dont get me wrong, im not claiming animals are immoral, you are totally right, they are amoral.

This is why its completely flawed to compare us with them. Im really only stating examples of the difference between us who have morals, and the animals who dont.
Because humans can act in the same way as animals...we can live without morals too, as some do... but we know its wrong to do so and most of us would never want to live like that.

 

[waitasec]

cats kill for the fun of it. Often they dont even eat what they have caught....im often rescuing mice, rats and birds from my cat, or i find a dead one perfectly in tact. And i feed him plenty, so he's not killing to survive.




Yes, it makes me morally superior to my cat

cats do not kill each other for the fun of it, we kill other species for the fun of it, don't we?
btw, my cats are more moral than yours

you just agreed that we dont understand how animals think....

we don't. but would you agree that our sense of morality doesn't necessarily compare with theirs...


with bears the dominant male will fight until the opponent concedes then they pretty much leave each other alone.
i heard somewhere that the animals who kill their species do not have natural weapons, like claws and sharp teeth...and the ones that do have natural weapons only kill, in most cases, other species for survival.

 

[lunamoth]

oh dont get me wrong, im not claiming animals are immoral, you are totally right, they are amoral.

This is why its completely flawed to compare us with them. Im really only stating examples of the difference between us who have morals, and the animals who dont.
Because humans can act in the same way as animals...we can live without morals too, as some do... but we know its wrong to do so and most of us would never want to live like that.

OK. What is interesting is that it may be that within some social animals there is some sense of morality among the group members. But, looking at it from our perspective we do not judge the behaviors of Bonobos, for example, as immoral. Kind of interesting when you think about it.

 

[waitasec]

oh dont get me wrong, im not claiming animals are immoral, you are totally right, they are amoral.

i'm not so sure amoral is the right definition...
1.
not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2.
having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong

Amoral | Define Amoral at Dictionary.com

amoral implies there is a standard unbeknownst to them...

This is why its completely flawed to compare us with them. Im really only stating examples of the difference between us who have morals, and the animals who dont.

i think animals do have a sense of morals they follow, only we cannot relate to it because of it's indifference

Because humans can act in the same way as animals...we can live without morals too, as some do... but we know its wrong to do so and most of us would never want to live like that.

it still cannot compare...
think of those pesky taggers...
they tend to paint graffiti on property and billboards...but they most never
paint on a persons car....:sarcastic
so there is still a sense of morals even within the 'immoral' behavior in some people...
twisted i know...

 

[Enoughie]

If we're on the topic of comparing the morality of different species (ie. humans vs. other animals), I'd say Starlings are far superior to humans in terms of morality - they live much more harmoniously then we do. And I don't think they either believe in God, or follow some moral code that they base on reason. Their "moral code" is based in Nature (evolutionary biology).

Just watch this:

[youtube]XH-groCeKbE[/youtube]


____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[waitasec]

elephants are awesome too and they're matriarchal, thank you very much

 

[Pegg]

cats do not kill each other for the fun of it, we kill other species for the fun of it, don't we?
btw, my cats are more moral than yours

perhaps not each other, but they certainly do fight and injure each other.


speaking of catfights, check this one out
[youtube]LginABtdH9g[/youtube]
Funny as!

we don't. but would you agree that our sense of morality doesn't necessarily compare with theirs...

absolutely, there is no comparison because we have a different sense of right and wrong. We know its wrong to kill another's baby, we know its wrong to hurt someone...we even know its wrong to hurt another animal which is why try to help them when they are injured. If i was an injured kitten in, my cat mother would likely kick me out of the den and stop feeding me.

with bears the dominant male will fight until the opponent concedes then they pretty much leave each other alone.
i heard somewhere that the animals who kill their species do not have natural weapons, like claws and sharp teeth...and the ones that do have natural weapons only kill, in most cases, other species for survival.

the instinct to kill a rival males young is a huge gulf between humans and other animals...there are many carnivors who will do that. Bears are fierce competitors when it comes to mating and food sources...i saw a documentary that said a large percentage of cubs are killed every season by rival adult males...and cubs do not present a challenge to an adult male so it seems they kill them purely for the sake of mating.

 

[waitasec]

If we're on the topic of comparing the morality of different species (ie. humans vs. other animals), I'd say Starlings are far superior to humans in terms of morality - they live much more harmoniously then we do. And I don't think they either believe in God, or follow some moral code that they base on reason. Their "moral code" is based in Nature (evolutionary biology).

Just watch this:

[youtube]XH-groCeKbE[/youtube]


____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

:clap

i loved that....thank you

:flower2:

 

[Pegg]

OK. What is interesting is that it may be that within some social animals there is some sense of morality among the group members. But, looking at it from our perspective we do not judge the behaviors of Bonobos, for example, as immoral. Kind of interesting when you think about it.

i certainly think there is a set of predefined behaviors, or instincts, which are there for a reason. Perhaps God put those instincts into them as a means of keeping populations under control...and perhaps as a way to ensure animals continue to breed and remain strong and healthy. Survival of the fittest works very well in nature because it gives each animal group the best chance of a continued existence

but in our world, survival of the fittest is not necessary because we are bound by our morals which moves us to care of the weaker members... we are just so vastly different to the animal world in that regard.

 

[waitasec]

perhaps not each other, but they certainly do fight and injure each other.


speaking of catfights, check this one out
[youtube]LginABtdH9g[/youtube]
Funny as!

:biglaugh:
it was almost as if they were having a marital spat and she couldn't take it any more...

absolutely, there is no comparison because we have a different sense of right and wrong. We know its wrong to kill another's baby, we know its wrong to hurt someone...we even know its wrong to hurt another animal which is why try to help them when they are injured. If i was an injured kitten in, my cat mother would likely kick me out of the den and stop feeding me.

true. but there have been cats who nurse abandoned kitten or even puppies...
go figure...and here i am comparing them to our sense of morality yet again

the instinct to kill a rival males young is a huge gulf between humans and other animals...there are many carnivors who will do that. Bears are fierce competitors when it comes to mating and food sources...i saw a documentary that said a large percentage of cubs are killed every season by rival adult males...and cubs do not present a challenge to an adult male so it seems they kill them purely for the sake of mating.

it's that survival instinct that is understood, by our moral standard, as...selfish.

 

[waitasec]

but in our world, survival of the fittest is not necessary because we are bound by our morals which moves us to care of the weaker members... we are just so vastly different to the animal world in that regard.

and causing over population...
you saw the matrix....right. we are being compared to viruses. our sole purpose is to prolong our life and multiply until we destroy our host, ultimately causing our own demise...

ok, time for a disney movie...

 

[Pegg]

and causing over population...
you saw the matrix....right. we are being compared to viruses. our sole purpose is to prolong our life and multiply until we destroy our host, ultimately causing our own demise...

ok, time for a disney movie...

haha, the matrix is very well organized with everyone being kept in their proper place ... like nature

 

[McBell]

wolf pack interactions consist of ferocious fights to the death among competing males... and when it comes to food, its the strongest who get to eat first.
Baboons are the same, males fight to the death for the right to mate with multiple females, Gorillas have a pecking order where the strongest get to eat the best food... none of that spells morals to me.

Your disagreement with their morals does not make the morals not morals.

a moral animal is one who would put the interest of others first, would forgo its own comforts and needs to provide for the weaker members and it would never demand sex from its female members.... but that is not how any of the above animals behave.

Ah, so you then agree that humans ain't moral either.

 

[McBell]

That is something animals will never have and its what sets us apart.

I understand that you will likely never be able to comprehend this, but you are just flat out wrong.

 

[McBell]

but in our world, survival of the fittest is not necessary because we are bound by our morals which moves us to care of the weaker members... we are just so vastly different to the animal world in that regard.

How about you present something that supports your claim?

I mean, after all, you have not presented a single example against animal morality that is not just as prevalent in humans.

You go on and on about how much better humans supposedly are, yet do not present anything to support your claim.

 

[Pegg]

Your disagreement with their morals does not make the morals not morals.


Ah, so you then agree that humans ain't moral either.

no, the difference here is that we can 'choose'... animals cant'.

 

[McBell]

no, the difference here is that we can 'choose'... animals cant'.

"we" can "choose" what?

Which morals to follow?
To change morals as we see fit?

And what does choice have to do with it?
Why is it that this "choice" factor was not brought up until now?
What else are you forgetting to mention?