Why Can animals Be Like THIS WITHOUT RELIGION? No bigotry Here!

[Solitary]

The point of the topic is why can animals know right from wrong without religion. I have seen even "wild" animals of different species play with each other, and most mammals don't kill, even in mating rituals, accept to protect their young or are hungry. Bigotry has to be taught, even little children when hurt by another child and makes them cry shows remorse unless they have not been taught to be mean by example. It's not that animals are better than humans, but that humans are still animals, with, or without religion, and religion seems to support bigotry, or bring out the worst animal instincts we have, just like competitive sports do.

[Munch]

yeah, but like say solitary, its more rare cases of animals that do this. My cat won't even get on with other cats in her garden, so its not always the case.

Just like people, animals can find common ground with each other, just as we can. It all comes down to the individual.

[Solitary]

I really don't think it is that rare among even wild animals, as to your cat protecting it's territory, it is instinctual and not taught, just like teenage gangs that do that, or any other group of people that look out for each other in their territory. Still, the point is that one does not need religion to be a good person, and not having religion doesn't make a person a good person either, because we are driven by instincts just like animals, and not by intelligence, even though it doesn't take that much to "know" that what we don't want done to us or our loved ones is wrong, even though our instincts can push us over the edge. 

[Mike Cl]

I agree. We as the human species can't even come to a solid foundation on what moral is, so I don't know how animals ever would. I think it's more likely that animals act a certain way which increases survival.

I wouldn't consider indiscriminate killing moral, but chimps and house cats call that Thursday. Gang rape: ducks and cheetahs love it. The more social the animal, the more propensity they show for altruistic behavior, but I think we incorrectly attribute it to human-like qualities like fairness and compassion, while overlooking all the other things that make them still, well, animals. It's true, we can't prove these animals don't actually have good hearts, but at least what does seem evident is that there was an evolutionary advantage to certain "moral" behaviors among social animals, leading them to occasionally mirror what we would call moral.

Like you I see behaviors that are characteristic for a certain species.  But to label them as moral is a bit of a stretch for me.  It takes a certain amount of reasoning to label an action as being moral; not sure animals have that ability.  Yet, the dolphins and apes, for instance, constantly amaze me.  It is true we really are not far along in our understanding of animal 'reasoning'.  And I will tell you my dogs (furry children) amaze me with how intelligent they seem.  They really do have me trained well.  So, how would a male lion, for example, know if an action is moral or not--who would tell him?  The pack?  How does the pack know?  Seems to me that trial and error, and natural selection would take care of that--don't really see a need for morals.  And I don't really know if humans have morals, either.  I mean, every action (or just about all) is circumstance driven.  Is it immoral to kill our own species or group?  Depends.  Lie?  Depends.  Cheat? Depends.  Nothing is in concrete.

[wbuentello]

What I mean by morality is a sense of right and wrong. What is considered right and wrong is largely, but not entirely, subjective but I'm talking about the SENSE of right and wrong, that feeling you get when you've been done wrong or when someone does you a solid. It's not something reasoned. We as humans reason it, after the fact, but that's only because we have the rare ability to reflect on and examine our actions. Morality is absolutely a result of evolutionary development. We as a social species, and all other social species, like dogs and dolphins and monkeys and such needed to develop behavior the would be conducive to social groupings. Morality is nothing more then behavior that promotes social cohesion. There are indeed some very interesting studies done on animal behavior in regards to a moral sense. Moral behavior is really just a necessary function of social behavior. You will find it anywhere you find social animals, just to varying degrees, which is dependent on their intelligence and sociability. House cats aren't all that social, dogs on the other hand are extremely social. Be a dick to your cat and they will most likely be indifferent. Do the same to your dog and one way or another he will let you know that he knows you are a jackass. This isn't just a case of anthropomorphism. Just Google some studies, they are there and extremely interesting

[Mike Cl]

What I mean by morality is a sense of right and wrong. What is considered right and wrong is largely, but not entirely, subjective but I'm talking about the SENSE of right and wrong, that feeling you get when you've been done wrong or when someone does you a solid. It's not something reasoned. We as humans reason it, after the fact, but that's only because we have the rare ability to reflect on and examine our actions. Morality is absolutely a result of evolutionary development. We as a social species, and all other social species, like dogs and dolphins and monkeys and such needed to develop behavior the would be conducive to social groupings. Morality is nothing more then behavior that promotes social cohesion. There are indeed some very interesting studies done on animal behavior in regards to a moral sense. Moral behavior is really just a necessary function of social behavior. You will find it anywhere you find social animals, just to varying degrees, which is dependent on their intelligence and sociability. House cats aren't all that social, dogs on the other hand are extremely social. Be a dick to your cat and they will most likely be indifferent. Do the same to your dog and one way or another he will let you know that he knows you are a jackass. This isn't just a case of anthropomorphism. Just Google some studies, they are there and extremely interesting

So, for you, morality is an evolutionary development and it is any behavior that promotes social cohesion.  Yeah, I like that definition.  Whatever makes the group more successful than another group will be selected for in the long run.  Makes sense.  I will google some animal studies--this area interests me. 

Seems to me that for the animal world, nothing is abstract.  In other words, I don't think my dogs would ponder an action to figure out if it is good or not.  But they would have learned by practical methods, methods that give immediate feedback--so, yeah, I want to do that, or  no, that didn't work out well in the past.  Humans can be a bit more abstract about this process.  But still, whatever works, works looms large in our actions.

[Solitary]

This is a good example of the problem with philosophy and debate---what is meant by moral behavior, or morality, and whose morality are we talking about? 

[Mike Cl]

This is a good example of the problem with philosophy and debate---what is meant by moral behavior, or morality, and whose morality are we talking about?

Yes, Sol, I totally agree.  That's why when having a serious discussion, one needs to establish ground rules, such as what are the definitions of the key words and concepts of whatever is being discussed.  Otherwise, it is all too easy to simply talk past each other.

[Baruch]

And that is why you have scholarly philosophers and lexicographers to define words for you ... but then you just let authoritarianism and politics back in.  In my experience, it is impossible to narrowly define words, outside of jargon like mathematics.  Humans don't communicate that way ... I say something that reflects my experience ... and if you have had a similar experience, then you understand what I am saying.  But since it occurs automatically in older children and adults ... we are in fact communicating unconsciously ... the message isn't in the words ... like Morse Code ... it is more like direct transmission between sensei and student.

[Mike Cl]

And that is why you have scholarly philosophers and lexicographers to define words for you ... but then you just let authoritarianism and politics back in.  In my experience, it is impossible to narrowly define words, outside of jargon like mathematics.  Humans don't communicate that way ... I say something that reflects my experience ... and if you have had a similar experience, then you understand what I am saying.  But since it occurs automatically in older children and adults ... we are in fact communicating unconsciously ... the message isn't in the words ... like Morse Code ... it is more like direct transmission between sensei and student.

Yeah, I suppose.  But it seems easy enough for me to define key words.  If I am discussing faith, then I define it.  And I check to see if the other person agrees with it.  If not, reach an agreement.  Then discuss it further.  All to often I have had discussions with one definition in my mind and the other person had a different definition.  The discussion is then just words passing in the night.

[Baruch]

You can't help passing in the night ... unless you hit the john before going to bed ;-)

[Mike Cl]

You can't help passing in the night ... unless you hit the john before going to bed ;-)

Well, there is that thought.  And nowadays I hit the john before bed, during bed, during bed and upon getting up.  Called older. :)

I think a good case can be made that we each create our own world since we really cannot ever experience life in any skin but our own.  And I really cannot 'empathize' only sympathize.  And that is at best a close approximation.  We are in reality islands that only we inhabit.  So, reaching complete agreement is impossible--since we can't even know if we do that or not.  But, having said that--and I do also think that that is the reality of it--that does not mean I don't like to engage others in discussions.  Or to observe others and try to learn lessons for myself.  So, while I may in reality be stranded on my own island, I don't always act like it.

[Baruch]

Let me tell you a secret ... beings, including people have an interior and and an exterior.  When you experience yourself from within yourself, that is your interiority ... only beings have this, not objects (like my box of tissues).  When you are experienced by other beings, that is your exteriority, and you can partly experience this by looking in a mirror or even just looking at your own hands.  You also approximately experience yourself, by analogy, when you experience other beings, particularly other people.  Beings aren't mutually exclusive, we overlap ... that is how we can interact.  We are both what we experience of ourselves and what others experience of us, otherwise there is no means for objectivity, just subjectivity.

So there are all these beings ... and atoms aren't beings ... atoms are a materialist idea cooked up by beings like Democritus.  When we finally look thru a field electron microscope, we can see what appear to be individual atoms.  But this is partly a categorical mistake ... we expect to see atoms, and when we do what we think is necessary to see them, then we see them.  But they are actually fuzzy balls, the electron cloud extends in ever greater weakness out to infinity.  Every electron, is everywhere, but not equally so.  Beings are like that ... you and I extend to the farthest reaches of this shared universe.  We choose to establish an imaginary boundary between atoms, in a space that is anything but empty ... and so we do between beings.

So yes, we create our own world, exactly so.  If you want to know what a parallel universe looks like ... just look at another human being.  To them you are also a parallel universe.  But these parallel universes do overlap, do interact ... because our separation is a necessary categorical mistake ... we learn as infants to expect, because others work independently of us, that the others are not I ... we have will only over I, not You.  The separation between mother and infant.  But this is necessarily an infantile understanding ;-)  Universes aren't made up of vast collections of atoms ... universes are beings that perhaps come and go, who imagine that they are made up of atoms.  When universes collide, that is the "colliding branes" superstring theorists go on about ... that is what we are doing with my posting this and you reading it.  No LHC is required.  The Buddha says ... "wake up!".

[Mike Cl]

Let me tell you a secret ... beings, including people have an interior and and an exterior.  When you experience yourself from within yourself, that is your interiority ... only beings have this, not objects (like my box of tissues).  When you are experienced by other beings, that is your exteriority, and you can partly experience this by looking in a mirror or even just looking at your own hands.  You also approximately experience yourself, by analogy, when you experience other beings, particularly other people.  Beings aren't mutually exclusive, we overlap ... that is how we can interact.  We are both what we experience of ourselves and what others experience of us, otherwise there is no means for objectivity, just subjectivity.

So there are all these beings ... and atoms aren't beings ... atoms are a materialist idea cooked up by beings like Democritus.  When we finally look thru a field electron microscope, we can see what appear to be individual atoms.  But this is partly a categorical mistake ... we expect to see atoms, and when we do what we think is necessary to see them, then we see them.  But they are actually fuzzy balls, the electron cloud extends in ever greater weakness out to infinity.  Every electron, is everywhere, but not equally so.  Beings are like that ... you and I extend to the farthest reaches of this shared universe.  We choose to establish an imaginary boundary between atoms, in a space that is anything but empty ... and so we do between beings.

So yes, we create our own world, exactly so.  If you want to know what a parallel universe looks like ... just look at another human being.  To them you are also a parallel universe.  But these parallel universes do overlap, do interact ... because our separation is a necessary categorical mistake ... we learn as infants to expect, because others work independently of us, that the others are not I ... we have will only over I, not You.  The separation between mother and infant.  But this is necessarily an infantile understanding ;-)  Universes aren't made up of vast collections of atoms ... universes are beings that perhaps come and go, who imagine that they are made up of atoms.  When universes collide, that is the "colliding branes" superstring theorists go on about ... that is what we are doing with my posting this and you reading it.  No LHC is required.  The Buddha says ... "wake up!".

Thanks for the secret.  I think I get what you are saying.  And I agree that we, as individuals, do overlap our energy fields.  Our electrons, if you will.  And not only with other humans, but with everything.  So, in that sense, we are all one--all connected.  But just because I read what you say, or physically share an event, does not mean that I fully understand what it is you are experiencing--I have to relate what I think you are experiencing back to me, and I then translate what you are doing, or saying into a language I can understand.  It really matters not what you intended or what you really experienced, for I cannot really know what that is.  So, I translate and hope for the best.  Yes, I only have will over I, and not you.  And I can only ever experience I and not you.  I cannot feel what you feel--only what I feel.  I can translate and guess what it is you feel; but that's as close as I can get.  And so for me, that is the yin and yang of the life.  We are all one, all connected, yet never totally one; we can only truly experience ourselves. 

[Baruch]

Notice ... you used "we" and "ourselves".