(I wrote the following between four in the morning and six in the morning, so if it makes no sense or I made no sense will only come out later today after I had a good sleep.)

Love your answer! It's the perfect set-up.

Since we are talking about morals: As a definition I like to say that a moral choice is one in which one foregoes his own short- or long-term gain in order to aid someone else with relinquishing the resources he himself could use for his own benefit.

At the same time as this, I also add a definition-strong qualifyer that in moral acts one increases the survival of his offspring and his genes.

---------

I furthermore am convinced that moral codes are not individual at all, despite the appearances of a widely ranging moral responses.

---------

Many people do not make the difference of what SkyHooker does: Personal moral code and societal moral codes. I don't only think that personal codes are similar; they are in fact identical. In society, the terrain, the geopolitical and geophysical, and other situations, as well as the political system are big influences to make codified morals different from country to country. Cultural influences to the present also shape a nation's members' codified morals.

----------

However, a Muslim man and a most Republican American, or a Democrat or a most rabid communist in Korea (north), or a member of a hitherto undescovered kannibalistic tribe in Papua or the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church do have the same, identically same, personal, inner moral code (that sky named ethics).

This is how it works: A moral person is looked up in society. They are revered. They view him as a man who gives up his pleasure for the good of his family or his community. For instance, he's rich and philanthropic; and/or he's influential and good-looking, but he never cheats on his sweetheart wife, even after their so far 32-year-long marriage.

A moral man will share his bread with his comerades, fight for their rights in town hall meetings and in collective bargaining in work situations. He will work hard, he will feed his family, he will give his kids the best education, he will be supportive with his family members, and provide good and heartfelt advice to others in the village. He will fight the government and urge his Congressman to do a better job to embetter the lot of the people in the constituency he lives in. He will make some hard choices: He'll fire some people at work, he will help prosecute his buttler if he suspects him of lifting the silver. He will fight the neighbour whose kid bullies his own.

He will serve jury duty, apply his best judgement there; he will fight for his country and he will die for his family.

In these examples one can see that he will always help those humans who have a closer semblance to his DNA on the expense of those other humans who are farther removed from his DNA. He will defend his kids against his cousin's kids; he will fight for his county and try to get an advantage for it on the expense of neighbouring counties, like where the new football arena should be built. He will fight for his country, not for the country of another nation. This is strange here in north America, because in Europe they have nation-states, but here in America we have state-nations. This is just to show that the emotions that govern one's moral behaviour are transferable from paradimical situations to situations where a false but similarly-constructed relationship exists.

This moral code has developed over millennia, and evolutionarily speaking it had a huge advantage for those who possessed this code in their genes over those who did not; so the "highly moral" people had a much or somewhat better chance of passing on their own genes; so eventually the genes that called for unethically programmed or rather not ethically programmed behaviour were eliminated. If they presented in submissive genes, then they perhaps survive.

What gave me the clincher to argue the universality of ethics is a thought-experiment. Many psychological studies were conducted with subjects who had to decide that a runaway train, not controllable in any way, should kill five railway workers or only one who were on the tracks, to be determined by the simple throw of a railway-switch, which the subjects were told they could operate.

Everyone said, yes, let's go for losing one innocent life instead letting five innocent people die.

The second part of the experiment was a thought experiment: Five men are in a hospital, desperately needing transplants (two guys for kidneys, one for heart, one for liver, and one for lungs). A new guy shows up in the waiting room, perfectly healthy, he is here for a check-up.

The doctor has the dilemma: Ought he to sacrifice the healthy man to save the lives of five others. For the sake of the experiment one must assume that the transplants are done relatively risk-free; and that the five man needing transplants will make a perfect recuperation after the transplants.

Everyone person ever asked this question says no. Some come up with supporting arguments, like "healthy people should not be cut int pieces without their prior consents; that this one man ought not be forced to give up his life, only voluntarily; that there is the sanctity of life.

Whereas the railroad argument and the hospital argument are identical in one respect: One person is better to lose than a whole bunch at once.

We cannot possibly accept the hospital argument. It would be logical, it would be philanthropic, it would be moral, it would make sense, it could make five people extremely happy, and would make an excellent story. But everyone vetoes it, despite its exact similarity to the railroad argument.

Why. Why? Because human beings have not been wired to accept that putting brand new parts into a man would substantially increase his life-expectancy. This has never been known to happen for our immediate past of 100,000 years as a species of Homo Sapiens. So if given a choice, our built-in and soldered-in moral compass will not recognize this as a viable situation.

The funny thing is that everyone sees the hospital dilemma’s solution as logical; and it doesn’t matter how strongly a man reacts to logic, nobody chooses “yes, kill the poor bloke to save the lives of others.” We could not say it because our ethics are binding; and that is the only reason.

The universality of answers to these two dilemmas is staggering; and the only explanation is that situation had never presented in the past.

If you are asked “five lost men are freezing in the Canadian north, and a trader with enough furs to cover the five men shows up on his dogsled; and the half-frozen people ask him to give them all the furs, including his own coat, should he be forced to give these up, which means the trader will surely perish”, you will give the go-ahead. We can see that’s a good choice and morally we do not condemn the five lost men.

This fur coat example is identical to the hospital dilemma, except it’s not body parts that are divvied up but coats; otherwise the “goods” save the lives of all five, and make the original owners of the “goods” perish – be the “goods” human transplantable body-parts or the “goods” furs that provide a chance to survive.

To me these universalities are not at all different from the universalities of the actions of all mother cats’ in the world moral behaviour. They are both universal because they are hard-wired into the brain; they are motivated by a positive and pleasurable emotion that one feels when he’s done something benevolent or good, both in the cat’s example and the fur trade example.

The difference between the trader dilemma and the transplant dilemma is that the fur trade dilemma some of our ancestors surely witnessed and saw it executed, so the decision got hardwired into our ethics genes. The organ transplant has been unwitnessed. Prior to fifty years ago no heart was transplanted into a surviving patient. No liver transplant, no kidney transplant, no lungs transpant had been witnessed– as a matter of fact, quite the contrary.

So whether you call instincts ethics, or ethics instincts, it does not matter as the language is describing a relationship in which the terms are not reasoned out but acted upon by a hard-wired ethical code.

In either case, the behaviour is universal, it is hard wired and new behaviour that has not been ingrained cannot be introduced by logic or reason.

I’d like to offer my own evaluation of the critical differences between the examples and how the choices made by the subjects could easily have been arrived at through very simple and accurate reasoning.

Train: The subject is told that he will be personally responsible for at least one death. He is not given any choice in that matter. His only choice is, will he be responsible for one death or five. He chooses to be responsible for only one.

Hospital: The subject does have a choice as to whether he will be personally responsible for a death or not. In sacrificing the one for the five, he would be guilty of murder. In taking no action, he would only be guilty of criminal negligence. He could be sentenced to death for murder, but only a jail sentence for criminal negligence. He chooses to be guilty of criminal negligence instead of murder.

Furs: I must disagree with the assumption that the choice to “give the go-ahead” is universal, because I would not “give the go-ahead”. I don’t agree with having the trader give up his own coat. The coat belongs to the trader, not any of the freezing men. And since the tragedy of the death of one person is unavoidable, forcing the trader to give up his coat would simply be a crime of theft with no offsetting benefit.

So, because of the above reasoning, I can’t agree that the examples demonstrate that ethics are in any way “hardwired” into the genetic makeup. At most I would agree that they are very deeply ingrained into the mental makeup through years of living within a particular social structure.

Just my opinion.

Hi Fusion,
This thread goes on to discuss more dinifitive difinition and differences between morals and ethics. Eventually, how far we expand our moral thinking or our ethical behavior will be discussed.

You are correct that we are capable of greater food production than ever in history, but at what cost?

Animals have feelings, both physical and emotional. Animals, as others will go on to say, have individual personalities and those that live in groups are also socialized by that group. From ants and bees to big cats and wolves. Herd animals and those that are easily domesticated are also socialized but even domesticated animals if given sufficient opportunity can return to the wild.

Instead we enslave them for our purposes which may not be a bad thing if they are still allowed to live contentedly, in other words if they are provided the same basic types of necessities that humans think are necessary for happy, productive and fulfilling lives. Yet we do not consider the physical and emotional needs of these animals beyond what is necessary to serve us.

Now consider that slavery, as it was in the United States, consisted of the mindset that black people were some sub-standard species, no more than any other domesticated animal. Keep that in mind. A bond formed between a male and female and a baby is conceived. The pregnant black animal was a new commoditiy and might fetch a good price. Or the child that is born is a male and the mother and father are large and strong workers, that child could fetch a good price and a better price if several years prove the strength and worthiness of that child. These people were branded and sometimes pierced and the only medical attention was to keep a worker working. Little regard was given to physical and emotional well-being. We were able to do this because, as a society we were desesitized to the similarities of black people to whites. We were socialized to recognize color with an animal mentality.

Imagine if we had respect for animals. If we recognized they do have emotions, feel pain and even have personalities, would we ever have that kind of slavery? If we should ever encounter another life form as old as humanity quite different, perhaps a human equivalent of bees or cows, will we try to communicate, try to learn from them? Or will be subjugate them, see them as a commodity without realizing that the echosystem of their planet depended on thier very being?

The morality that surrounds life and what are the basic needs and expectations of that life must be extended to all life or we begin to thing in slave mentality.

Animals serve a puprose in and of themselves, not strictly as a means to an end for any other life. Though we see several species subsist at the expense of another life, we cannot stop looking beyond that expense. There is an interconnectedness in nature. Herd animals are many and those that prey on them are few but they keep the herd from over population. The herd animal grazes keeping fields from becoming jungles and thus other animals can exist. It goes on and on, but it does not end or begin with humans, we are part of the connection.

Someone mentioned that personal choice must play a role, yes it does. Some see the treatment of animals and cannot take part in preserving it and others make choices that are different and there are a variaty of reasons, but no matter the reason if we allow the horrer we inflict on other life to continue we are setting the stage for other horrors in the future of other life and endangering the echosystem for us all.

PoisonSting

You have many wise comments, and your thoughts often seem organized and extend outward to others, but I think perhaps you have not looked past the boundaries of a life of convenience. You are not alone, we have not been taught to consider others in the world beyond how they effect our own cozy life.

An individual alone can not produce a tractor. You seem to think that an individual, alone, would somehow have access to all that you are privy to know. Again I entreat you to look beyond our country. If we can produce enough through agriculture to feed the world why are there more people in poverty and living with hunger and malnutrition than not?

You have also not considered the effects of scientifically magnified agriculture and farming productivity. What are we destroying with our chemicals, where do you think these chemical go to when the ground swallows them up or when the cow is eaten.

We really could produce more than enough healthy food choices for the world IF we use the world for that production. But today people whose countries are frought with war or drought or simply too impoverished to help their own people to help themselves are starving and those that have (as you say) are asked to provide. But you would provide charity and feel that denied for having to give part of what you ‘rightfully’ worked for to feed the poor. Please think beyond your life of ease, think of what alternatives might correct the problem so you will not be asked for charity. Many millions of people are capable, willing and desire to be productive, to work harder than you will ever have to work, just to feed themselves while you work overtime to get a new car.

Here again the individual alone is helpless to ‘provide’ but not helpless in bringing about change and solutions. Transformational leaders pop up all over the world, but I bet you might only name a few from your own country.

You have many wise comments, and your thoughts often seem organized and extend outward to others, but I think perhaps you have not looked past the boundaries of a life of convenience.
We preserve our way of life but we do so selfishly, because it serves our own social purposes. But there is a bigger reason to preserve and maintain our status in the world and doing so comes with great responsibility for we are in a position to offer solutions to the problems of humanity, to make decisions that will ultimately keep the environment of the world safe for all life while allowing nature to provide what it has to offer.

I sometimes wonder if God kinda freaked out when we started eating the other animals

I really enjoy your posts, Wux.

It seems we’ve changed the topic to one of definition. Like Sky I have often argued that there is a difference between ethics and morality. My reasoning was that morality (as a word) is tied to religious believes which have traditionally served to guide human behavior.

Ethics, as a word, is more equated with the behavior of people as guided by the rules of a society.

However, ethics as a philosophy began inextricably tied to morals which were originally guided by beliefs. Because there were so many dogmatic belief systems the philosophy sort of developed as an effort to combine the best part of all morals for a standard.

Of course nothing stands still and philosophy develops right along with the rest of us. So ethics, as a philosophy, has two divisions. The first that Sky and I think of is the division which reviews societal behavior and attempts to discern the best ethical behavior that might encompass all societies. This is an interesting philosophy because so many societies are so strongly influenced by their religious beliefs.

The second division of ethics deals with those things that can and should encompass all of life. It began as a way to look at human behavior toward each other and has expanded to our behavior for all of life.

So if you don’t mind it would be easier for future philosophical discussions if we refer to ethics and morals as the same thing, understanding that the morals we discuss are separate (thought often the same) as those of religious or dogmatic belief responces.

Will that work for everyone? Can we all make these distinctions and speak of rights to life as both morals and ethics?

Wux, can we extend the thought experiments to animals? If it were possible to inject a chemical into the bloodstream of an endangered species and transfuse the blood of the animal to a human to cure cancer but the animal must die to do this, should we do this?

Consider that this is an endangered species that might well provide, in some unknown way, a future harmless cure for all cancer. First of all not everyone would benefit from this cure and its obvious that only the richest or most elite would be able to afford it. Secondly we probably use the species to extinction, if not using it for cure we would certainly destroy it with experimentation.

Now what if the animal is a dog, would it make a difference? Would we simply use the easily and readily dog to breed it for this purpose and be done with the venture? Or would continue to use the dog for both cure and experimentation?

Finally, what if certain Asian people were found to have a quality that would allow the same reaction. Would we breed Asians or perhaps try cloning them for the purpose of curing cancer?

In the end we (humans) are no more than a herd animal, and can easily be replaced. After all we hear all the time about overpopulation, would this not be a natural way to thin it out even if we don’t use cloning? Of course cloning might be more acceptable because we would simply provide what is necessary for the clone to survive until it is usable. It can’t really be human can it, I mean it wouldn’t have any socialization or education or even be civil, just domesticated.

What do you think?

I can see I am going to have to limit my exposure to this thread since I will never have enough time to say everything I want to say...

Wux,

I largely agree with Sky. I think you have latched on to a specific idea and not explored the alternates enough. But Sky, in the case of the doctor he would be blameless. He would have done everything in his power to treat the 5 dying patients and so would not have been negligent. You cannot sue an auto mechanic for not fixing your 1920 Ford if he cannot find the parts.

As for what you believe to be a universal moral code: Since we are talking about morals: As a definition I like to say that a moral choice is one in which one foregoes his own short- or long-term gain in order to aid someone else with relinquishing the resources he himself could use for his own benefit. With the proviso that individuals will give preferential treatment to those who are genetically closer. That is your moral code and one that I personally refuse to live under.

According to your definition, a man who runs into a burning building to save a stranger is immoral because he is risking being lost by his family to save a stranger. If that man dies doing so, that would make him down right evil. Although I somehow get the idea from your writing that a man would be incapable of making that choice.

The idea that ethics?morality? (can't figure out exactly which you mean) are passed down genetically... ummmm.... that is just a baaaad idea.

Think about it this way. If morality is genetic, that means that evil and good will be passed down to offspring. And since you believe that our actions are governed by our genes, there can be no redemption for the wicked... in fact, no freewill (but let's leave the redemption/freewill issue out of it).

You also suggest that our actions and choices are based on sacrificing ourselves to those less fortunate (closer to our DNA first). ummm... yeah, this is a racist belief. If I own a company with one opening, I will offer it to the one who is closest to my genes. I will only allow my daughter to marry someone close to my genetic type (but I don't have to worry about it since she will be attracted to someone close to her genetic type). This idea of genetically hardwired ethics and morals isn't a very cheery picture for homosexuals either. Although, since we are all genetically hardwired to make choices to promote our DNA there probably aren't any homosexuals anyway since that is a dead end development.

I am thinking I probably misunderstood your points...

Another point about our morality is shaped over time by what we witness...

If we make moral choices based upon what we are familiar with (fur trader vs. transplant), then we have only 2 choices...

1) rely on tradition as our moral compass with the understanding that if we break tradition we are evil since: "This is how it works: A moral person is looked up in society. They are revered."

2) allow that society can only progress through immoral (i.e., evil) actions. Since the new by definition breaks tradition, advancements in society can only be performed by the evil.

Conclusion: Since immoral actions will be bred out of society through selective breeding ("so eventually the genes that called for unethically programmed or rather not ethically programmed behaviour were eliminated. If they presented in submissive genes, then they perhaps survive.") we will ultimately reach some form of homogeneous, albeit stagnant, society in which evil has been eliminated.

I don't think I can agree with your conclusions.

Wow this thread has come a long way, ill have to catch up.

Ethics is applied morality through the collective sense of ought. Morals are the personal sense of ought.

Applied ethics determine whether or not animals have rights, and which ones are 'afforded'.

Good conversation going!

Red,

Somehow I get the impression that you think me a cold and uncaring eco-marauder determined to subjugate Mother Nature under the wheels of my SUV.

Not the case. Once again... Yes, I believe that we need to concern ourselves with the future of the planet and our children. Yes, I believe that there are some real tragedies in the world. Yes, I believe there are things that each of us can do to alleviate problems, both locally and globally.

But this paragraph seems to be the crux of our disagreement...



I think that if you knew me you might be surprised at what I know about the 3rd world and what I am personally doing to help. However, SOME countries are undergoing severe difficulties do to situations beyond their control, some from poor planning and leadership, and some from evil governments. Yes, I believe that not all forms of government are created equal and when tyrannical warlords destroy nations, that is evil.

Again... Yes, I believe in charity. Yes, I like to help others. But when you stop asking for help and start to demand it under threat of imprisonment if denied, then I have a problem. When you demand that I must provide for you and for your children and your children's children... I say no.

And when alternatives are provided and disregarded, then I feel no moral compulsion to continue.

As far as the topic at hand... I would still like to know what animal rights you believe every animal should be afforded and how they should be provided for.

I am guessing from your post to fusion you believe that animals should not be considered property, but partners. Except I don't think you are supposed to eat your partner.

I am also guessing that you believe that people should view animals as equals. They are not. This in no way sanctions abuse or unnecessarily painful treatment to animals. However I would never save the life of my dog at the expense of my daughter (or even a stranger) because animals and people are not equal.

So far I have only been able to divine 2 reasons why you believe animals and people should be considered equals:

1) Animals have feelings. Quite frankly, it requires more than that to be my equal. Drug dealers and pimps have feelings, but I think I am better than they are. Warlords and tyrants have feelings, I am better than they are too. We do not live in a world of equality. Nor should we. Excellence, liberty, justice and wisdom should be extolled virtues and not things thrown into the muck of human degradation in an attempt to make us all equal.

2) We are all connected. Again, I have already mentioned that connection does not equal dependence or responsibility. Let me go further and suggest that connection is not equality. A parent is not a partner to their child. A shepard is not a partner to the sheep. In fact, let's look at that particular analogy a bit closer...

The shepard is the owner (or a representative of the owner) of the sheep. His concern is to keep the sheep safe so that they will provide him with what he needs. In no way could they be considered equals. It is in his best interest to do his job because if the sheep become sick or killed by wolves he will lose his investment and his livelihood.

The shepard might be lucky enough to have a dog to help him. The dog represents a substantial investment in training, but that investment pays off because the shepard is able to take care of more sheep. The dog is not a partner. In your view of the world, the dog is a slave. It gives its labor to the shepard for what it needs to live and no more. The dog gets not say in what it is told to do. Again, it is in the shepard's best interest to take care of the dog.

Are the sheep happy? Their happiness isn't a concern one way or the other, they are a resource. Anyone who would try to make a sheep happy would only be guessing anyway.
Is the dog happy? It would seem so. Most dogs like to chase sheep around, it never goes hungry and has a strong pack leader to tell it what to do. however, once more the dog's happiness is irrelevant. It is a piece of property that should be taken care of to that it will remain useful longer.
Is the shepard happy? I would hope so because if he isn't he is wasting his time engaging in an activity that does not fulfill him. However, it is his life and I will give both him and myself enough respect to make their own choices.

I hope I haven't mischaracterized your words and if I have please correct me.

Lots and lots of examples of a less then perfect world, one where hard decisions are made, sometimes all parties are considered and sometimes no one but the one doing the consideration is considered. I am afraid this thread has inflated a bit so I am going to try to deflate it a bit if everyone wants to tag along.

Lets all go on a journey into a perfect world. No death, no hunger, no need to fight for resources as everyone is an energizer bunny and needs no sleep, no shelter(as there is no bad weather.), no power as the biggest group is that of the individual. Humans are still the only race of being on planet earth with technology, but technology only serves a purpose at the top of maslows hierarchy of needs: for the abstract, for pleasure.

Would there be morals, or ethics in such a place? Would people ever consider the difference between right and wrong? Can any of us even imagine such a place?

If such a place can never exist, what does that tell us?
If such a place can exist, what does that tell us?

It seems the best we can do is take a moment and try to imagine ourselves as the party in question and try to find a path of mutual best interest.

It seems that the nature of the being should be a part of the consideration, it seems that an affinity for ones own species adds a natural bias. It seems that the responsibility to even consider these things only falls to those intelligent enough to have the faculty to consider it.

Ok so if an alien race came to earth and they have a way that changes a being just enough to make it an energizer bunny, never needing food, sleep, shelter, or anything to survive or enjoy existence, and the only caveat in deciding if we are ready for such a thing is our net morality based on how we treat the least of all beings on this planet, do you think the human race would ever receive such a gift? Would you consider it a gift at all? I mean everyone in this thread has in there own way espoused a path that juggles nature, and needs. Perhaps this balancing path is the goal, and the only tool is consideration for the basic units of experience of each being from its own perspective. If we can strike a balance then I do not think its far fetched to imagine such a final gift, perhaps not from an alien race, but from our own advancement that was built on the foundation of an ethical society.

The thing with the alien example is that the aliens must be careful with freeing up humanity from mortality, resource gathering ect could lead us to conquer others at an accelerated rate. If humanity is focused on might is right and we had such a tech . . .

I think technology will come to terms with these things. I think we will find a cure for death by old age(the first step), maybe even in my lifetime, do I think we are ready for it . . . . no.

Without such a balance I cannot imagine humans will not be our own destroyer.

Sorry Bushido, I am not really sure I am following you.

You want us to imagine a perfect world so that we can imagine a perfect morality?

I don't think I can do that since I am the guy who believes our morality is based on our human condition. In essence, the fundamental choice to live or to die.

Every human must make this choice every conscious minute. Do you light a cigarette or not? Do you throw out that tin can or recycle it? Do you blow off work to party with your friends? Do you go to college? Do you accept a high paying but ultimately unfulfilling job? Do you choose to have children?

I think every choice you make ultimately boils down to your life and how you want to live it. By removing the need to make these choices you minimize the most basic question of ethics: is it right or wrong?

Bushidobillyclub..........Did you see District 9?? Cuz the movie indirectly asks the same questions. Was Matrix that list?

Sky, your objections are absolutely valid, and I hope to get my points under your scrutiny as it is enlightening to me what I missed in my original text.

"Train: The subject is told that he will be personally responsible for at least one death. He is not given any choice in that matter. His only choice is, will he be responsible for one death or five. He chooses to be responsible for only one.

Hospital: The subject does have a choice as to whether he will be personally responsible for a death or not. In sacrificing the one for the five, he would be guilty of murder. In taking no action, he would only be guilty of criminal negligence. He could be sentenced to death for murder, but only a jail sentence for criminal negligence. He chooses to be guilty of criminal negligence instead of murder."

The train-hospital set-up has gone several and very many variations. In some, it's the doctor, the surgeon, who messed up the five dying people. And it's his, the doctor's choice and within his power to divvie up the healty man in the waiting room. In some other versions the man at the switch is throwing someone else into the tracks to save the five workmen who'd be hit if not for throwing the guy. There have been very many other variations on the sets-up, but they all agree in two points: It is okay by the opinion of all to sacrifice one healthy man for the exchange of saving the lives of five others; and that it is not okay to sacrifice one healthy man for the exchange of saving the lives of five others. The first in the train/tracks, the second in the hospital/transplants.


"Furs: I must disagree with the assumption that the choice to “give the go-ahead” is universal, because I would not “give the go-ahead”. I don’t agree with having the trader give up his own coat. The coat belongs to the trader, not any of the freezing men. And since the tragedy of the death of one person is unavoidable, forcing the trader to give up his coat would simply be a crime of theft with no offsetting benefit."

I must have grossly messed up with the fur trade example. It was near 5 in the morning when I wrote it and I fell asleep between each two sentences, and toward the end, during the sentences, too, and my proof reading it at the end was a disgraceful shame. Honest, I haven't read it yet today, and it's just a haze in my memory what I wrote there. I'll revisit my script, and true, I may need to change some wordings. Thanks for your critical points, which I took well, since they were given well.

Redy, You're on. I blindly followed Sky's initiative to divvie up the meaning of ethics and morals into the two sub-classes. In my books they are completely interchangeable synonyms. If you define them two different ways, you'll always find scholarly tests that use the two words in the exact opposite arrangement by meaning.

I'm completely okay to use morals and ethics, moral and ethical, interchangeably and start to name the scope of their meanings as we use them, unless the meaning is the same as the last time that the word was used in someone's continuous text, in which case no qualifier is needed. But one must put a qualifier the instant he or she uses the word in the other meaning of it.

We could vote on this convention, even.

Everyone gets one vote, except me, I get 4,553 of it.

No not at all. My questions where specified directly in that post, no need to dig for them in the scenario, feel free to dig, just not what I was asking for. I do not believe in any kind of transcendent state of perfection, there are basic needs that tend to be used as staging points for conversations of morality, I find it a very interesting change to come from a state of desire instead of need. So lets pretend all needs are met for every human, how does that change morality, and ethics?

As humans we seek clear answers to our questions, and only by removing most of the variables do we get to the meat of the problem.

Random scenario:
Hunger, my child is hungry you have plenty of food but are unwilling to give it up and would rather watch my child die for pleasure, we are inferior for whatever reason, I kill you take the food and dont feel bad about it becuase of the situation ect.

Lets take these kinds of situations out of the picture. I honestly feel that we will transcend our mortality via technology given enough time, but like Michio Kaku I believe that we must first deal with what we have, and if we fail we will never make it as a race to that day. Probably nuke ourselves into oblivion.

Its painfully obvious that any morals or ethics we pursue now must be in context of our current situation. So lets paint some future situations. It also takes some of the ire out of the conversation to consider a future scenario instead of the charged conversations that get folks riled.

I am merely presenting a possible future situation that transcends many of the variables that hamper us now, and ask that everyone think what would morals be like given no shortage of food, space, no need for shelter in a world where we create the whether, where energy is endless and life a pleasure. Feel free to create your own future situation and we can think about that. Its clear our current situation limits our resources, abilities and even desires to change it.

I am also posing a problem to our current situation, and essentially asking if humanity has what it takes. What if there is a second coming, but not Jesus, but a technologically advanced race of beings that gives the chance for all morally transcendent beings to leave earth to head to a paradise, or to make earth a paradise but the caveat is we must destroy the immoral? What if we found that a certain set of polygenic traits create 99% of the criminals and we can test for this, or remove it all together from the human genome . . . how does that play out in this situation?

Religious stories are full of these kinds of ideas. Is it not something we cannot imagine surely? Or is it a concept we can wish for but not fully comprehend? Is the grass just greener on the imaginative side?

The way I see it might does not make right, what might does is make responsible. The aliens would be responsible for giving us a power that could destroy the balance, or cause strife. We are responsible the same way over that which has no power.

What humanity needs to do in its civilized infancy is start to learn the lessons of adolescence and realize that with such power comes responsibility. I think the human race is about 12 years old right now, old enough to see the questions, but not old enough to have the experience to answer it.

I spent time in such a place in a very vivid and colorful dream. I will tell you about it.

The weather was perfect. So perfect the dwellings had large openings that led to the outside with no doors or screens. There were no bugs to crawl in, no bad weather. It was a perfect garden.

The dwellings were like the ones you would imagine the Greek Gods to be living in. Tall columns, water falls, high ceilings. A table filled with fresh fruit and veggies was in the middle of this room. Around the room were giant pillows which were sleeping mattresses of silk and other wonder fabrics.

Everyone was beautiful. No ugly people, no fat people. I had a mate who was a tall blond man and looked like a Greek God. His gift to me was joy and love and he made a gift of another man for sexual pleasure. There was no jealousy or monogamy. That was a silly idea, to be confined to one mate for sex.

The love making was not an orgy of carnal knowledge, but full of tender loving care and pleasure.

I wish I could have stayed longer and learned about the culture, the government and how things worked, but I woke up from the dream. I felt like I had been on a vacation. Wish I could go back.

But I think if you lived in a place like that for thousands of years.. it might get a bit boring. hmmmmm.

What if we found that a certain set of polygenic traits create 99% of the criminals and we can test for this, or remove it all together from the human genome . . . how does that play out in this situation?

That's a big 'what if.'

Shall we kill the immoral? (That's what Christianity suggests.) Kill them because they are 'evil."

I don't think it worked. There are still a lot of evil people left.

Shall we kill them because they don't believe the way we do? (That's what most religions suggest.)

Shall we kill them because they don't worship us? (That's what the alien gods would do.)

No, we should not kill them. Just let them die out, or remove their bad polygenic traits. Or don't allow them to reproduce. Sterilization would eliminate them all in one generation. (This is providing you had absolute proof that you can tell a serial killer by his genes.)

Galactic extermination is done with sterilization. The leading edge research group, Val Valarian believes that this entire galaxy of life forms (aliens) will all be destroyed by a virus that sterilizes all life. Don't worry, all humans will have been long gone from this galaxy by then.

Yup that was where I was going. This gets into the ethics of genetic modification. If we are not predisposed to moral behavior, we know what needs to change to change it, but it changes who we are . . . do we do it?

If some people are bad becuase there genes urge them into bad behaviors is it right and proper to change that without there consent even if it makes there life and other lives "better"? Or to sterilize them so that they do not pass those genes on? OR . . .