0
Mattarat wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
EdwardRoss wrote...
I know it hurts but self mutilation isn't the answer you seek. WMD's are :twisted:Sooo...these are not the droids I seek?
These are not the droids you seek. He can go about his business
He can go about his business. Move along.
0
EdwardRoss wrote...
Seph wrote...
The "morals" EdwardRoss posted are closer to what I'd call common sense. The male is stronger than the females from the beginning, while they are faster and more agile. Therefore, the females hunt and bring back food for the male, who gets to eat first because he needs to defend the group if there's any trouble.
In that case, you're absolutely right.
0
...but that's not, in my opinion, "right and wrong". I'd assume that's trial and error, like reaching over a hot flame for the first time to find it hurts-you don't stop b/c it's wrong, but b/c it hurts you. You avoid cheating on your taxes not b/c it's wrong(like, morally wrong), but b/c you know you'll end up getting your ass ripped out by the IRS. The idea of "right and wrong", in the moral sense, seems more like a man-made idea than anything that just is.
Your comment, EdwardRoss, did give me a different viewpoint of things. I guess from that standpoint it's easy to make the assumption that this is something base, built into us. In the end that's all any of this is, is assumptions, really...
Your comment, EdwardRoss, did give me a different viewpoint of things. I guess from that standpoint it's easy to make the assumption that this is something base, built into us. In the end that's all any of this is, is assumptions, really...
0
EdwardRoss wrote...
M2991 wrote...
Human invention or something more?Well its not so simply put I'm afraid. for the most part right and wrong exist in every social structure that even includes animals. So we cannot say human invention because its been around a lot longer than we have. Take lions for example they have a system in which the females do (most of) the hunting and the males (usually one male) mates with the females and fends off attackers (other predators or lions).Also when there is a kill the males eat first. So if a female ate first that would be a social taboo or wrong where as if the male eats first it is considered right. Therefor on some level its natural because we like lions are a highly social species. That is not to say that we have not come up with a few odd ones but many of the right or wrong situations are there more for survival than something we cooked up to be silly. for instance if you insult a man in public and he kills you. He will be sent to jail so that he cannot harm others and also to send a message to other people showing them its wrong to kill someone. On the same it also becomes wrong to insult a man because he may kill you over so insults also become wrong. This in no way says we didn't through a few odd balls in their but for the most part it is a necessary part of our species.
Actually you're confusing right and wrong with favorable and unfavorable. While many species have integrated a number of practices into a working social structure, its more along the lines of instinct and the need to survive that dictates the way they develop. Of course, we don't know exactly what is going through another species' mind, but what we can say is that animals in the wild live lives that are, in many ways, much simpler than ours. Because we can utilize logic and this bullshit, we become overly judgmental. We think beyond the true nature of actions. An action is not, in itself right or wrong, it is neutral. The connotations that they carry are something that those who experience ascribe to them.
So to answer the question originally posed, to the extent that it is a concept, its definitely derived from man, but if you're talking about the general practice, I'd say its instinctual.
0
You can argue that "right and wrong," or morality, is something that is inherent and will never change. For example, "murder is always wrong" is a good example of something that is always wrong. Of course, for morality to be inherent and eternal, it has to come from some source outside of man and society. That source would probably be God.
If you don't believe in God, or think that God just sits on his (proverbial) ass and doesn't care about us at all, that doesn't mean you can't have morals. It just means that you have nothing to back up why you believe something is right or wrong except for your own thoughts, what's going on in society currently, etc. The problem with that is, it's saying that morals can change as time goes by. So, it is possible that one day, murder would be okay, and no one could say that it wasn't.
To put it very simply, if you believe in God, then you believe that morality comes from God and is immutable. If you don't believe in God, then you believe that morality is man-made and changes with time.
It's a great, big argument that's been going on for hundreds of years.
If you don't believe in God, or think that God just sits on his (proverbial) ass and doesn't care about us at all, that doesn't mean you can't have morals. It just means that you have nothing to back up why you believe something is right or wrong except for your own thoughts, what's going on in society currently, etc. The problem with that is, it's saying that morals can change as time goes by. So, it is possible that one day, murder would be okay, and no one could say that it wasn't.
To put it very simply, if you believe in God, then you believe that morality comes from God and is immutable. If you don't believe in God, then you believe that morality is man-made and changes with time.
It's a great, big argument that's been going on for hundreds of years.