natural law?

[Mock Turtle]

Maybe, but as I see it, it has also to do with intelligence in combination with empty and the ability to doubt truth. More if you want to.

But the non-believers don't have a faith telling them that homosexuality is wrong, or that females are destined for certain roles, or that they will be punished for whatever. One can't dismiss an external authority (religious teaching) as having no effect on many. I'm not suggesting that being non-religious will inevitably make one to have saintly behaviour but one has a better chance when there are not some of these influences determining one's beliefs - and which often are divisive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But the non-believers don't have a faith telling them that homosexuality is wrong, or that females are destined for certain roles, or that they will be punished for whatever. One can't dismiss an external authority (religious teaching) as having no effect on many. I'm not suggesting that being non-religious will inevitably make one to have saintly behaviour but one has a better chance when there are not some of these influences determining one's beliefs - and which often are divisive.

Your model is to simple. It assumes in effect that claims of Objective Authority can only be arrived at through religion. That is not the case if you study how claims of Objective Authority works. Religion as a source of morality is subset of morality, and is not the only sources of claims to Objective Authority.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Your model is to simple. It assumes in effect that claims of Objective Authority can only be arrived at through religion. That is not the case if you study how claims of Objective Authority works. Religion as a source of morality is subset of morality, and is not the only sources of claims to Objective Authority.

Whatever.

 

[ChristineM]

However, we do Not see animals feeling remorse for hurting another animal or stealing from another animal as human morality could feel remorse or regret.

We don't see hunters feeling remorse for the animals they kill. We don't see packs of animals going round purse snatching. Do you really want to compare?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

We don't see hunters feeling remorse for the animals they kill. We don't see packs of animals going round purse snatching. Do you really want to compare?.................

.... and we know of the good dolphins have done for mankind. (great picture you posted)
We can compare conscience and instinct.
Animals go by instinct whereas a person's conscience can accuse or excuse a person.
A conscience can become hardened to the point of No more feeling just like flesh branded by a hot branding iron.
Jiminy Cricket was only right if one's conscience is trained in the right direction.

 

[Bear Wild]

In behavior, I have never seen one dog show remorse for stealing another dog's bone, but I do see what you mean.
Consider too, the behavior that some animals eat their young.
A few years back there was a news story about a women who had a chimpanzee for a long time as a pet.
One day the chimp got outside and a known friendly neighbor came by and the chimp's behavior surprisingly severely attacked her.

I've read examples of people in concentration camps ( Not a stable social condition ) that have shown remorse.
Some smaller people sharing their meager amount of food to help a larger person.
People on the ' death march ' (survival setting) that helped others.
So, to me it is the human ' voice of conscience ' calling one to help another even if nothing is received in return.

Considering all of the behavior of non-human compared to the human animals the human animals wins the award for the least compassionate creature on earth.
Yes there are animals the eat their young and there are humans the murder infants in the name of religions and or politics without remorse. So which is really worse?
As for keeping a pet how many slaves revolted against their owners.
Chimpanzees and other primates that share food. Animals of one species have saved another animal of another species. Multiple examples. Altruistic behavior is alive and well in the animal world including human animals thanks to out anterior cingulate gyrus and anterior insula with their von economo neurons found in multiple social animals. But that makes sense since we are animals and therefore share the ability for empathy and behaviors we call morals.

 

[Bear Wild]

.... and we know of the good dolphins have done for mankind. (great picture you posted)
We can compare conscience and instinct.
Animals go by instinct whereas a person's conscience can accuse or excuse a person.
A conscience can become hardened to the point of No more feeling just like flesh branded by a hot branding iron.
Jiminy Cricket was only right if one's conscience is trained in the right direction.

Animals including humans have instinct yes but they also have intellect including empathy, compassion, theory of mind and language capacity. The right decision is determined by the effect on prosocial behaviors that are supportive of survival.

 

[Thief]

The right decision is determined by the effect on prosocial behaviors

so...no freewill

just social pressure

 

[Bear Wild]

so...no freewill

just social pressure

This question was about morals not free will. Social pressure and survival with brain dynamics forms behaviors we call morals. Free will is another question entirely.

 

[ChristineM]

.... and we know of the good dolphins have done for mankind. (great picture you posted)
We can compare conscience and instinct.
Animals go by instinct whereas a person's conscience can accuse or excuse a person.
A conscience can become hardened to the point of No more feeling just like flesh branded by a hot branding iron.
Jiminy Cricket was only right if one's conscience is trained in the right direction.

I have been taught that many animals have conscience, i have seen examples of animal conscience,

And i have seen examples of humans either without conscience or deliberately overriding their humanity

 

[Thief]

This question was about morals not free will. Social pressure and survival with brain dynamics forms behaviors we call morals. Free will is another question entirely.

let's draw a line

natural law is not written

social morals are taught and often written down somewhere

 

[Bear Wild]

let's draw a line

natural law is not written

social morals are taught and often written down somewhere

Lets erase the line. Morals are behaviors that are neurologically and socially determined. The fact that some are written down has nothing to do with their origin. Even if they are written down the we still behave based on our own patterns of behavior set in our brains. Writing down may influence this but does not determine it.

 

[sojourner]

We don't see hunters feeling remorse for the animals they kill. We don't see packs of animals going round purse snatching. Do you really want to compare?



View attachment 41408

I remember the gorilla that picked up and protected the child who fell into the enclosure at the zoo.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I have been taught that many animals have conscience, i have seen examples of animal conscience,
And i have seen examples of humans either without conscience or deliberately overriding their humanity

Interesting that you say ' have been taught...' because that is true of both humans ( who seem to be born with self love ) and with a puppy, for example,
you never punished the puppy, perhaps merely a scolding him for making a mess in the house. So, you decide to lock him up in an outbuilding but later decide to let the now grown dog back in the house with a warning not to mess in the house again. Then you notice that the dog is still Not housebroken.
So, whose fault is it (?) the puppy/dog or the human's behavior without a carefully trained or cultivated conscience___________
Animal life with 'moral' instinct, but we are Not born with moral sense, but we acquire moral sense. Acquire it in different ways.

 

[Thief]

Morals are behaviors that are neurologically and socially determined.

you erase one line
offer two more as if they are one line

and i don't believe morality is biological

Cain never have killed Abel

that was a choice

or maybe you would argue.....Abel was doomed
Cain was destined by his genes to be a murderer

 

[Bear Wild]

you erase one line
offer two more as if they are one line

and i don't believe morality is biological

Cain never have killed Abel

that was a choice

or maybe you would argue.....Abel was doomed
Cain was destined by his genes to be a murderer

I really do not care about Cain or Abel. I have never met them and they have no meaning to me.. But there are no lines in moral behavior and it has always been moral behavior long before the written word. Something written does not make it any more real or meaningful.

 

[Bear Wild]

Interesting that you say ' have been taught...' because that is true of both humans ( who seem to be born with self love ) and with a puppy, for example,
you never punished the puppy, perhaps merely a scolding him for making a mess in the house. So, you decide to lock him up in an outbuilding but later decide to let the now grown dog back in the house with a warning not to mess in the house again. Then you notice that the dog is still Not housebroken.
So, whose fault is it (?) the puppy/dog or the human's behavior without a carefully trained or cultivated conscience___________
Animal life with 'moral' instinct, but we are Not born with moral sense, but we acquire moral sense. Acquire it in different ways.

You are not up to date on current research. The concept of moral instinct is completely outdated as we learn more about animal behavior outside of laboratories. They acquire moral sense through the same neurologic pathways as human animals. It was our own ignorance about other non-humans animals which impeded our understanding. Along with an arrogance that we are different. Animals in their environment develop their own moral patterns of behavior.

 

[ChristineM]

I remember the gorilla that picked up and protected the child who fell into the enclosure at the zoo.

I remember a couple, the first i remember was a wonderful statement on animal/human relations, unfortunately the second, more recent incident ended with the gorilla bring shot

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting that you say ' have been taught...' because that is true of both humans ( who seem to be born with self love ) and with a puppy, for example,
you never punished the puppy, perhaps merely a scolding him for making a mess in the house. So, you decide to lock him up in an outbuilding but later decide to let the now grown dog back in the house with a warning not to mess in the house again. Then you notice that the dog is still Not housebroken.
So, whose fault is it (?) the puppy/dog or the human's behavior without a carefully trained or cultivated conscience___________
Animal life with 'moral' instinct, but we are Not born with moral sense, but we acquire moral sense. Acquire it in different ways.

And if you treat a human baby in the same way what result would you expect?

See post #57
natural law?
By @Wild Fox

 

[chinu]

Question:

Is there such thing as a natural law? (as opposed to a divine law or a human-made law)

That exists independently of God?

In the same way as 4 + 4 = 8 exists independently of God?

Natural law = God law / divine law.

Both are same.