analyzing morality

[falco]

Hi

All your post have a similar thread running through them. What i understand from these previous post was that ones morals is a mixture of nature and nurture. It sounds like more nurture. Meaning that as we grow we learn unconciously at first then conciously as we become more aware of abstract concepts. I read these post and see that everyone here and else where on earth states that this or that action is right or wrong/ evil or good.

By stating such claims and eventually creating laws that reflect those morals...sets up a legal system that others with different morals can get trapped in. What I understand is that laws are put into paper and enforced by the majority or whoever has the most power. So is right or wrong depended only on these laws that reflect the majorities morals. If so then the individual or minority is wrong, when they violate these laws. Since claims of right or wrong are truth claims.

I have alot of questions because I am still learning these concepts.

Subject little different here---------
I like to call myself a biologist in training.

By having such morals that animals have rights like humans. Using biology for your life, and not killing even an ant, I wonder how does biology (what humans observe of the natural phenomenon called earth) sit non-contradictory to not killing an ant as an action that illustrates equal rights between humans and an ant (animal). My own experience as a biologist says that certain species eat species to survive (plant and animals). To say other wise is to contradict an order system needing energy to live (observable natural phenomenoms). I am not pulling any personal attacks here, but just trying to understanding these concepts.

Thanks

[Eradon]

Today @ 05:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=239174#post239174)
falco:

I read these post and see that everyone here and else where on earth states that this or that action is right or wrong/ evil or good.


If I understand that correctly, it brings up the issue of objective vs. subjective morality. Killing isn't considered immoral in all cultures, for example, so IMO we can't say that no matter what, this action is right/wrong. Things we consider immoral are perfectly fine for others.


So is right or wrong depended only on these laws that reflect the majorities morals. If so then the individual or minority is wrong, when they violate these laws. Since claims of right or wrong are truth claims.


Right and wrong depend directly on the morals of the majorities, not the laws based upon these morals. Is it immoral to go to a fascist country and insult the leader? Well, everyone in the country would consider it immoral, but from your standpoint, it's fine. I don't think fascism is the greatest example for this, but I couldn't think of anything else...


By having such morals that animals have rights like humans. Using biology for your life, and not killing even an ant, I wonder how does biology (what humans observe of the natural phenomenon called earth) sit non-contradictory to not killing an ant as an action that illustrates equal rights between humans and an ant (animal). My own experience as a biologist says that certain species eat species to survive (plant and animals). To say other wise is to contradict an order system needing energy to live (observable natural phenomenoms). I am not pulling any personal attacks here, but just trying to understanding these concepts.

I've been thinking about that too. Killing/hurting pets is immoral in our culture, but hunting is fine for most people. I think every animal is naturally somewhat "disrespectful" of animals lower down on the food chain. That's why animal testing is accepted. But if testing is done on animals that we can relate to (i.e. monkeys), or ones that are out of our food chain (i.e. elephants), tons of controversy arises.

[Jaltus]

Falco, this is an ATHEIST only area. Please read the rules for the forum when posting.

[Queen]

A good Question...

I am a biologist. I don't kill any living creature, I am a vegetarian and so on. So I am quite NUTS according to many people that I call family and friends.

What is my reason for this 'behavior'? First of all I don't believe in the concept of lower and higher animals with human being at the top of creation/evolution, although we are at the top of the food-chain (thanks to technology). To me all life is equal. The ant that walks on the street is not less than the cat lying in your lap. It is human perspective that we don't feel an emotional bond with many animals, especially insects, spiders, reptiles....animals that have low caress-ability. We don't want to compare animal behavior with human emotions, but we react to animals with human emotions. That is why animal testing is accepted on worms and so on. But when they show pictures of little white bunnies, cats, dogs and apes we feel horrible because of it. Yet we buy many products that are tested on animals. Cosmetics, medication and so on.......it is impossible to avoid all these products, especially when you depend on meds like me. I do watch what I use as cosmetic products....they are all "animal tested free".

Jane Goodall said one time that religious people are "less" worried about the environment and the way how animals are treated. God has provide these animals and will make sure the world doesn't collapse because humans treat it so badly. (Read "Reason for Hope). Jane Goodall believes in God, so she isn't an atheist pointing the finger. It is just something she noticed during her many travels and symposium. (I am neither saying that ALL theist are like that and she doesn't mean it as criticism, it is just a matter of observation. She is a very sweet human being and has no evil in her body)

I believe that we are part of nature and when we destroy ecological environments we will one day face the fact that we are making our own extinction reality.

We must treat all life with respect. We must bear in mind that they have feelings like pain and fear. If an animal isn't afraid it won't run or attack.....But I am not only talking about animal life I am talking about all life.......(although some bacteria and viruses are so life threatening, you have to make a choice for your life. If I get sick and it is an bacterial infection I use antibiotics. My cat is protected against fleas. I am not that naive.... :wink: and so on.

I always liked this quote from Mahatma Gandhi:
The greatness of a nation can be measured by the way it's animals are treated...

We have a long way to go

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[falco]

This is weird, I thought I was posting in a thread already formed.

Anyways.. Moderator I understand your point and will cease and desist before I get too deep in analyzing. Just can't stop myself.....help...

I seeing contradictions.....(remember the movie: "I see dead people") J/K

bye

[Passant]

Maybe this thread could be moved, like to philosophy? I would like to address some of Queens comments. Or Queen, maybe you'd like to post a new thread?

[Queen]

moved to philosophy forum :popcorn:

[Robyn Banks]

falco:
So is right or wrong depended only on these laws that reflect the majorities morals.
An ethical system depends on a society, and thus on a power structure. Sometimes the power structure reflects the 'majority', but sometimes not.



falco:
By having such morals that animals have rights like humans.
No thing "has" rights. "Rights" is a concept in the mind, and is not a property of any thing.



falco:
My own experience as a biologist says that certain species eat species to survive (plant and animals). To say other wise is to contradict an order system needing energy to live (observable natural phenomenoms).
An "is" is not necessarily an "ought". Given any fact, it is always possible to say either "but it is wrong" or "but it is right". This is still so with the survival of entire systems.


Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

This forum is for "nontheists", not only "atheists".

Robyn Banks

Back to back posts ARE NOT ALLOWED. You know better than this.

[Jaltus]

Robyn Banks,

You are either a theist or a non-theist. Therefore, you may either post in this forum (Naturalism 101) or else in the Christian theology sections, NOT BOTH. If you continue posting in both, we will begin deleting your messages.

You have been officially warned. This is your only warning because you know better.

This thread will be moved by the end of the week, but until then, please respect the forum guidelines or else there will be consequences.