now that was what i was looking for. thank you
if right and wrong were were in born as you said, no as i said ( =, than their would be very little injust in the world.
but dont you think the survival and prosparity of our speices has any thing to do with right and wrong. in the "civilized" or "free" world we live in, all of our laws and justice systems are similar. not exact maby but similar. murder, rape, stealing...
is it possible biology has any thing to do with where we got those ideas? other wise we would destroy ourselves right?

Cows do not have the ability of cognitive thought. They do not and cannot formally reason. They cannot choose between right and wrong.

Right and wrong are two ethical choices reserved for humans.

A cat can determine to eat her young, but still, it is not a cognitive thought that motivates her. It is instinct, no more. It is not an ethical choice for the cat to eat her kittens, a cat does not have the ability to reason. Right and wrong demand the ability to reason. Reasoning brains are reserved for humans only. Unless of course you want to re-write the science of psychology all together...

Prosperity as we know it in the American culture does not exist across the entire human population. Actually, a majority of the world's population exists in what we Americans would consider poverty.

There are roughly 300 million people in the United States. There are about 6 billion people on the planet. The U.S. population makes up only 4.3% of the entire world's population.

Of that 4.3% who live in the U.S., only the top 5% of the 300 million who live in the U.S. truly enjoy "wealth". That's only 15 million people who are truly wealthy. Now divide that 15 million people by the 6 billion people who live on Earth.

That comes out to 1/4 of one percent of the world's population are truly wealthy. (Of course to get a better figure, you'd have to include the top wealthiest of the European industrialized nations, and the total European population... but you get the picture...)

Looking at the world through a pair of United States colored glasses, only 1/4 of a percent of the world's population experiences the wealth and properity.

This event took the ability of reason. It did not happen by nature. It happened by major corporations taking over the financial markets and edging out all of the lesser inhabitants. It was a plan struck by the reasoning mind of man, not by a natural occurrance.

Telephoneman...

While I agree with most of what has been written by you thus far, reason itself does not require morality. I would disagree that we are the only animals who are capable of reason. However, it is a side-note to the topic at hand and makes little difference here. The complexity of elements upon which our reasoning is based is by far greater than other species through abstract means alone, but I think some other species do consciously weigh much simpler options.

Murder, rape, stealing, and things that are "against the law" are determined to be in that category because of the ethical system of laws we have in this country (and other countries also have similar things in their legal systems.)

Legal systems develop in a culture as a matter of collective agreements. The human ability to reason chooses to set up a protection for the common good in the form of what we call "laws." Laws are reactionary vessels put in place by a society as a reaction to what most individuals would agree are unacceptible human behaviors.

If there were no ethics, then there would be no laws, and none of these things would be considered illegal or bad. But it is the collective agreement of several members within a society, to set up laws that list and/or name the specifics of criminal activities, etc.

The point i was trying to make there is that cattle, kittins or humans can can become mentaly unbalanced by tramatic events. (personaly as a cattleman i shudder at the thought of cattle being able to reason, that could go bad for me in alot of ways)
you dont think our basic will to survive and thrive can possibly have anything to do with what we "descide" is right?
why dont we murder? because it hurts us as a whole. its unhealthy for society to go about murdering people. why do we have laws? to protect us. key word "us" humankind

I think I might better label it "human reasoning."

My dog can make a choice to come when I call to her. I would say that is more than instinct alone, that this would be a sign of at least some form of reasoning capability. She knows if she comes, she might get petted on the head, or she might receive a doggie treat. Also, she might not choose to come to me if the tone of my voice is lower or she can detect anger. I would have to say that my dog is able to make a choice.

I think what I could say is that "human reasoning" is more advanced than the other organisms on the planet. (At least the scientists seem to tell us so to keep us feeling good about ourselves... haha)

One day we might figure out it is the dolphins or the whales who are actually the more advanced cognitively.

but why? why do we decside to make these laws? because there key in protecting our best intrest as a whole. what driving force allows us to decside these laws?

Cheers to you guys!

It's getting late here.



Great topic BTW!!!

I would think the basic instinct to survive would be a motivator behind forming a law on the books making murder illegal.

But I think it takes a certain amount of human reasoning to form a society that is complex enough to have laws. Thus, the root being the thought and reasoning, not just the instinct to survive.

well i absolutly agree with you as far as reason goes, and i think in a round about way were saying the same thing.
reason is absolutly crucial to justice, and justice is ultimatly the protection and preservation of whats in the best intrest of humanity.
hmmm ill have to think on that

Ok, if you’re going to take that road, let’s not beat around the bush here. It was fun while the subject was about a philosopical issue. But now that it’s turned personal, it’s not longer any fun. If you’re going to continue to use outright lies, strawmen, ad hominem, veiled insults and innuendo, as you have done in the last two posts to me, then I’m done.

Your choice.

Ah, but unlike you, as a Fundamentalist religionist, I don't have to 'own' the whole book as if it were some kind of monolythic philosophy handed down on immutable stone tablets on a take-it-or-burn-in-hell proposition.

This just demonstrates the Fundamentalist mindset better than anything I could possibly write.


-Kerry O.

The logical conclusion after reading Darwin's works is that we need to implement eugenics. The logical conclusion after reading the Bible is that I'm a bad person and need to love people more. The most radical Christians alive today are probably the Westboro Basptists and there are what...100 of them? All one giant family. And they simply hold up signs at funerals, cruel, but not violent. Christianity is a very non-violent religion. We have a less than stellar past, but the religion as it exists today values peace and brotherhood. Christianity has evolved as a philosophy and as a group of people. While there are still individual Christians who are violent, the movement is passive.

Darwinists today simply look for marker genes that are found in Autistic children, so that they can be then aborted when they tell the terrified mother that her baby is autistic. They have already accomplished that goal with Downs Syndrome. Darwinists are always looking for way of improving the species as that is the logical and necessary step that find in Darwin's writings.

Now, if you don't oppose abortion and you believe in Darwinism, what I said above should make sense. After all, why would a parent want a child with Downs Syndrome or Autism? If you view humans as more than their worth as more than their health or IQ, as Christians do, then you find a universe of worth in every life.

To me the quote in question appears to be logical contortions in order to avoid saying "rape is always wrong".

But I want to be fair, so I'm going to step back a bit.

You are saying that you look at every choice as a choice between the wrong and the right choice. The right choice being morally superior to the wrong choice. Even if the "right" choice is morally repugnant, it is still the right choice, correct?

If so, then we agree so far...just hold on.

Now is where we get into my problem with your answer.

I said "You feel it's the less wrong of the two choices, but it's still wrong, correct?"

You replied...


You answer in the negative, you do not consider "rape" to be less wrong in the analogy, you consider it to be the right action.

Then you type...


...contradicting yourself!

You are simply playing symantic games by saying "Rape isn't always right, but that simply means it is the most right or the least wrong, while the other option is the least right or the most wrong"...

In the end, you agree with me that rape is always wrong (but you believe it can be less wrong that other options in some situations), but you simply refused to say it in so many words. I'm sorry, you can be offended, but that is clearly what your post said. To me, that is simply a convoluted attempt to avoid admitting you have been backed into an intellectual corner. Now if you misspoke, then speak up and say so, but you have gone on record already defending your position in the quote above.

Ok spidey, I'll bite...

Rape is always wrong.

How does that equate to absolute morality.

And this is true as far as we know, about only humans having this ability that is.

Reason. Which grew in us over time. We began to reason out the effects of actions on ourselves and others. That started the ball rolling to creation of a moral code which in turn created right and wrong. Groups of people had to agree as to what was right and what was wrong and therefore what the moral code of the society was going to be.

If objective right and wrong do exist, then the government must be dismantled, for it is riddled with moral contradictions. (it punishes criminals, but commits criminal behavior itself, and so on)