Right Or Wrong

[Polymath257]

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?"

You didn't understand. Hunting/gathering is a strategy to get food. Just like our agriculture is a strategy to get food. This is NOT primarily a matter of politics or power.

And, for the most part, I would vastly prefer to live in modern society than *any* society of the past. We are making progress, including moral progress. The toll from murder is far less, per capita, now than it was 200 years ago.

 

[Polymath257]

So... am I disingenuous?

I'd prefer to think that you misread or misunderstood what I wrote.

 

[Kenny]

I'd prefer to think that you misread or misunderstood what I wrote.

That IS a possibility. Have done it in the past and will probably do it in the future.

Maybe is it the proverbial "I'm not sure what I said is what you understood about what I said"? Both ways maybe?

 

[Polymath257]

That IS a possibility. Have done it in the past and will probably do it in the future.

Maybe is it the proverbial "I'm not sure what I said is what you understood about what I said"? Both ways maybe?

I'll put it this way. Would you prefer to live in today's society, with all of its issues, or in *any* society 5000 years ago? I know that I would choose the society today without hesitation. And that is because things are better off now than they were. This goes double if you go back before the rise of cities to the 'natural' societies that existed at that time.

 

[Secret Chief]

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.

As I said I consider the "insight" of the observer to be a speculative inference. Thoughts about right and wrong may be going through the monkey's mind but given the language barrier I do not see that it can be verified. Right & wrong are philosophical concepts, not behaviours.

 

[Polymath257]

As I said I consider the "insight" of the observer to be a speculative inference.

Potentially, but this type of process opens up the possibility of further testing. I don't know of any brain studies for this type of behavior, but that would also give information about 'internal cognitive state'. The minds of animals are not *completely* hidden from us: they do have observable consequences.

 

[Secret Chief]

Potentially, but this type of process opens up the possibility of further testing. I don't know of any brain studies for this type of behavior, but that would also give information about 'internal cognitive state'. The minds of animals are not *completely* hidden from us: they do have observable consequences.

Yes, further testing may indeed. But not, for me, if it's invasive as I suspect it would be.

 

[Deidre]

Is there such a thing as right and wrong, aside from man's concept of it? What do you think?

You have posted that you're a follower of Christ, if so, then you believe there is objective right and wrong. Jesus speaks of it throughout the NT.

 

[Kenny]

I'll put it this way. Would you prefer to live in today's society, with all of its issues, or in *any* society 5000 years ago? I know that I would choose the society today without hesitation. And that is because things are better off now than they were. This goes double if you go back before the rise of cities to the 'natural' societies that existed at that time.

The answer to that is an unqualified "yes". It wasn't what my first statement was about... but I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[metis]

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?"

But that's really a manifestation of capitalism taken to an extreme that got played outs through history. It's "competition", thus "survival of the fittest". Slavery made sense from a capitalist perspective, so did making "orange juice" without using any oranges (true story, btw) because it was cheaper. War makes sense to compete against others for the control of resources, whether they be "mine" or "yours". It's "dog eat dog", although I've been referred to with even worse words.

Because of this, the Catholic Church refused to condone capitalism unless "safety nets" were put into place to help with those who "lost" in this attempted accumulation of resources and wealth. Guilds and eventually unions emerged to try and moderate these extremes, and they were the primary cause of the emergence of the middle class in Europe and in the Americas.

Unbridled capitalism is basically greed institutionalized-- maybe the "666"?

 

[Secret Chief]

@ChristineM
(+ anyone else of course!)

Thanks for that linked article. I found none of it seriously challenged my opinion that it has not been proven that non human species engage in philosophising. I was already aware of altruistic and selfless behaviour in other species. My basic point is that we cannot confirm or deny the internal processes of any species that we do not share a common language with.

The early part of this long article refers to the issue of this thread and I have extracted some quotations to give hopefully the essence of it:

"animals probably lack the sorts of concepts and metacognitive capacities necessary to be held morally responsible for their behaviour, this only excludes them from the possibility of counting as moral agents. There are, however, certain moral motivations that, in his view, may be reasonably thought to fall within the reach of (at least some) animal species, namely, moral emotions such as “sympathy and compassion, kindness, tolerance, and patience, and also their negative counterparts such as anger, indignation, malice, and spite”

"we shall grant that moral subjecthood in animals is at least a theoretical possibility with some empirical plausibility."

"Any research project that explores the continuity between our species and the rest of the animal kingdom has the potential to deliver results that can serve to subvert this view of humanity, and consequently question our widespread exploitation of animals"

Most of the remainder of the article (as alluded to above) is a discussion on whether it may not be right for humans to exploit non human species in all the ways that we do. Given that I am a lifelong vegetarian and aspiring vegan I didn't really need to read a long philosophical diatribe on this (but I did). In regard to this thread, I would only comment that I find it odd that anyone that imbues non human animals with the sophisticated capacities of making ethical judgments but can then consume their flesh, knowing what preceded it arriving on their plate.

 

[Agent]

Everyone does what is right in his own eyes.

[11] He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
[12] And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
[13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
[14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
[15] For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Rev 22

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM
(+ anyone else of course!)

Thanks for that linked article. I found none of it seriously challenged my opinion that it has not been proven that non human species engage in philosophising. I was already aware of altruistic and selfless behaviour in other species. My basic point is that we cannot confirm or deny the internal processes of any species that we do not share a common language with.

The early part of this long article refers to the issue of this thread and I have extracted some quotations to give hopefully the essence of it:

"animals probably lack the sorts of concepts and metacognitive capacities necessary to be held morally responsible for their behaviour, this only excludes them from the possibility of counting as moral agents. There are, however, certain moral motivations that, in his view, may be reasonably thought to fall within the reach of (at least some) animal species, namely, moral emotions such as “sympathy and compassion, kindness, tolerance, and patience, and also their negative counterparts such as anger, indignation, malice, and spite”

"we shall grant that moral subjecthood in animals is at least a theoretical possibility with some empirical plausibility."

"Any research project that explores the continuity between our species and the rest of the animal kingdom has the potential to deliver results that can serve to subvert this view of humanity, and consequently question our widespread exploitation of animals"

Most of the remainder of the article (as alluded to above) is a discussion on whether it may not be right for humans to exploit non human species in all the ways that we do. Given that I am a lifelong vegetarian and aspiring vegan I didn't really need to read a long philosophical diatribe on this (but I did). In regard to this thread, I would only comment that I find it odd that anyone that imbues non human animals with the sophisticated capacities of making ethical judgments but can then consume their flesh, knowing what preceded it arriving on their plate.

ok. Try
Do Animas Know Right From Wrong? | Live Science

Or any of these
https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?q=Animal morality

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thanks, Tony! Well, I'm not going to declare that you cannot define "methodology" as you see fit. I mean, I'm insufferably arrogant -- just ask my two ex-wives -- but I have yet to reach the dizzying heights of being so insufferably arrogant that I feel privileged to dictate to decent folks such as yourself what you can and cannot mean when you open your mouths to speak! Good gods! I'm not that arrogant yet.

You'll have to wait until next week for me to have grown that arrogant!

At any rate, here's your argument... near as I can make it out (correct me if I am wrong)...

"The virtues produce and sustain life, the lack of virtues is conducive to decay and death."​

To be sure, I am not certain whether I agree or disagree with you there, but you might be interested to know that what you seem to have in mind appears to be strikingly similar to the philosopher, mathematician, and computer scientist Hilary Putman's argument that values do indeed provide us with some basis for claiming they can be 'objective'.

Basically, Putman argued -- just like you seem to be doing -- that 'virtues' must have at least some objective basis since they tend to have predictable outcomes. That is, honesty tends to produce predictable results over and over again. Likewise, dishonesty tends to produced its own set of predictable results over and over again.

As Putman saw it, values like honesty and dishonesty could not possibly be entirely and wholly without any objective basis in reality if they could consistently produce more or less the same objective results over and over again.

I myself have yet to take the time and make the effort to give Putman's argument a fair hearing and evaluation. I just haven't gotten around to doing that yet. So, I cannot say one way or the other whether I agree or disagree with you and him. I guess I have to leave it at that for now.

I hope all is well with you and yours in these difficult times.

Thanks for the info, that person seems to have spent a lot of time trying to prove with science, what is already accepted by many hearts. That Faith has objective foundations.

Maybe my Objective views are to Subjective?

As I am not strong in English, words such as methodology only come to me from in the context of what I have read and for me, for 36 years I have only read scriptures. Before that I was a Larry and Stretch reader, or Tin Tin type of guy. So if arrogance is perceived, it is not intended.

I guess Faith gives me strength in a methodology of determining what is Truth, via God given systems that were given to show us what is the Truth and what is not truth.

In the end we have to balance Faith with Science and I see science needs faith to unlock the bigger truths of what makes this world and the power that sustains it.

Have a most great day. We have an amazing cool night of 12 deg and 12mm of rain, love the cooler weather. Getting a winter in Normanton is a blessing.

Regards Tony

 

[Secret Chief]

ok. Try
Do Animas Know Right From Wrong? | Live Science

Or any of these
https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?q=Animal morality

They seem more of the same. The second link includes an article consisting of two opposing views. I don't see that there's a consensus.

 

[nPeace]

I think so. Anything that is overall more harmful and destructive in nature should be regarded as wrong, whereas anything that is overall beneficial and constructive in nature should be regarded as right.

This is along the line of what I am thinking.
Why do humans take good care to do things a certain way, if there is no right and wrong outside of the human perspective?
For example, why not mix any two chemicals together, and sing "Hallelujah"? Why is there a realization, after the fact, that they made a mistake, and need to correct it, if there is no right and wrong? Why not just do the same thing again, and say, "Oops. That was just nature taking a wrong hit. The next time, everything will be fine"?

It seems to me, evidently, man is discovering that everything works according to set laws, which if not followed, result in things going wrong.
That looks like a clear confirmation right and wrong exists, regardless of whether man has a brain or not.

 

[nPeace]

This is along the line of what I am thinking.
Why do humans take good care to do things a certain way, if there is no right and wrong outside of the human perspective?
For example, why not mix any two chemicals together, and sing "Hallelujah"? Why is there a realization, after the fact, that they made a mistake, and need to correct it, if there is no right and wrong? Why not just do the same thing again, and say, "Oops. That was just nature taking a wrong hit. The next time, everything will be fine"?

It seems to me, evidently, man is discovering that everything works according to set laws, which if not followed, result in things going wrong.
That looks like a clear confirmation right and wrong exists, regardless of whether man has a brain or not.

Good. That settles it then. There exists right and wrong, outside the human concept, regardless of human opinion, or desire. Hence, confirmation of an intelligent law giver, outside the human concept, or perspective.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Right or left

If they left, then they need to come back...right?