Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Who are you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Right Or Wrong
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Aren't wars "hunter-gatherers"?
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
These two examples show why I do not consider it appropriate to ascribe morality to other species.
"Sharing" is a behaviour, and is clearly beneficial for the individual involved, the group and ultimately the species. But the word "sharing" only refers to a behaviour, it does not, by itself, demonstrate an appreciation of ethics. We cannot "get inside" the animal's mind and the animal can neither confirm nor deny to us that their behaviour was motivated by a sense of right and wrong.
On the other hand "a sense of fairness" is a term referring to cognitive processing. (And of course it is not a behaviour). But because non human species cannot be interrogated regarding their cognitive processes it remains a closed book to humans.
An intelligent alien species may be determined to appreciate ethics (eg right/wrong) if we were able to understand each others language. (Possibly just before they vapourised the Earth).
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's just a concept, but an important social one.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Uh, no? Wars are political/territorial disputes,. Hunting/gathering is about obtaining food.
The are "Hunting" people for political and power gain.
If the totality of what man has done for good is just "gathering food"... is that really a good example of "how good man is and how great they have done with this world?"
Many animals have morality
Yes, of course. Humans all rely heavily on that for their laws to work at all. So that you don't need to read laws in order not to break them. So that you can't use "I don't know laws" to defend yourself in courts. You break the laws, which you never read in details, then you are jailed.
Depending on what your goals are. Some are right actions towards achieving your goals, some are wrong actions.
Yes, however its meaning is too complex for us to understand. We practice doing the right thing, but we're often wrong. You might say that right is too good for us, and wrong is to easy for us. In a practical sense the answer is no, but in an ultimate sense its yes.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I'm fairly certain they brought up the fact that humans have gone from hunting/gathering to industrial agriculture simply as an example of how societies have progressed, with which you're trying to conflate irrelevant things that are completely beside the point.
Nobody has said anything even remotely close to that. Being disingenous and misrepresenting what others are saying does not help to promote your point of view.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
But man uses god as a sock puppet, presuming to speak on 'his' behalf, essentially placing words in 'his' mouth. There are a bazillion religions, each with a bazillion variations, all claiming to speak on behalf of god, yet there is no consistently nor clear consensus on what "God's word" truly is. There's nothing to elevate one self-appointed spokesman above the next, and most of what is claimed to be "of god" is nothing more than arbitrary, irrational, and unsubstantiated nonsense. So, into theGod is right... man is wrong.
it goes.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
What would you say regarding post #43?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Depends on what's be "measured". Let me give two examples:
1.Are performing human sacrifices morally right or wrong?
2.Is 2 + 2 = 4?
With 1, some cultures said yes and some said no, thus there's no intrinsic right or wrong. With 2, that can be established as being right.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Regarded by man.
Really? In all honesty i would say it's based on very old, outdated understanding of animal behaviour.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-018-9275-3
The view that only humans can have morality ignores the fact that humans are animals
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I concur that humans are animals.
I must have that outdated understanding then. A behavioural action in any species may be deemed by a human observer to be or not to be "moral" but this is a speculative inference unless it can be confirmed through other means. If the actor is non human, given that non humans do not have human language capability, I consider this impossible. If the actor is human, it is possible to confirm whether or not the observer's speculation was correct.
Thanks for the link. I'll read it and see if I need updating.
And that is incorrect. For example, there is research on macaques where a monkey will refuse a desired treat if a companion is not given that treat for similar behavior. That is a behavior that gives insight into the cognitive processes.
Nope. And while wars are a considerable negative, they are NOT as destructive, by far, as the naturally occurring scourges such as disease, droughts, etc that are NOT the result of human behavior.
Just as an example, the number of people in the US that have died of COVID is now comparable to the number that have died in *both* the Korean war and the Vietnam war. In the past, the deaths from epidemics and pandemics *far* exceeded those killed in war.