I was actually inspired to start this Topic by something in Enoon's signature.
It sais: "Aggression is not an acceptable form of solving problems!".

Well what will you do about it is someone disagrees with you?
A most natural impulse would be to use violence in self defense.
But that would go against the principle of finding Violence unacceptable.
If not the use of Violence, how else will you solve the problem of being physically attacked?

This moral paradox lead me into a spectrum of philosophical questions.
I agree from intuition that violence is unintelligent, lower-animal behaviour.
But in the eyes of Nature, and the Animal part of me that is connected to nature,
there is nothing "wrong" about violence. It's part of the cycle of life.
But why then do we Humans have these notions of morality, of Right and Wrong, when Nature itself clearly
does not discriminate existance that way. Why do our human morals seem to have no foundations
whatsoever in nature? Where did we humans get this whole concept of Morality from?

Our Moral Consciousness seems of un-earthly origin.
And it seems to be in heavy conflict with the Lower Animal part of us. The 2 have intentions &
ideals that are seemingly impossible to coexist and yet every individual human being seems to be composed
of these 2 very different levels of Being. Should we de-evolve back into fairly simple upright apes? Or should
we evolve further to completely outgrow our Lower-Animal Self? Or could we somehow learn to live as both in an
acceptable, stable way?

That's been boggling through my Mind lately. Really needed to vent that and I wonder what views my fellow nexians
have on these philosophical questions.

Whoa there SKA

It seems obvious, but violence and agression only beget more violence and agression. There is no way any problems can be solved in this way.

Better to avoid violent and aggressive people if at all possible. Even if that means moving somewhere way more mellow.

Seriously.

Animals may get violent, but they don't have the option of getting a massage on a Thai beach, do they?

What you say is true, that violence doesn't solve anything, but just attracts more violence.
This is Intuitive & Contemplative Wisdom.

Why then is Violence such a deep seathed natural impulse?
How can such tendencies live together in one Being with such a thing as Morality and Wisdom?
How can Mankind bring forth Agriculture, Morality & Philosophy, Music, Theatre, Astrology, Architecture & Fine cooking...
but also Machineguns, Mustard-gas, Genocide-camps, Torture-devices, Atomic Bombs & UAV aircrafts that spy uppon the population?

Can you see why I cannot make sense of this?

Because humans are inherently amoral, just like nature.

I think it is an archival effect of culture, with culture being an archival effect of having such big brains with so many connections.

I'll go ahead and note that regardless of the ideals of some DMT smoalkers, many/most cultures embrace masculinity and patriarchy. Therefore the ideals of violence, conflict and war can in fact (and do) remain alive and well in our "civilized and modern" present day.

Probably best to focus on the better aspects of humanity, rather than dwell on the shortcomings of our species as a whole.

One day humanity might grow up... if we're lucky.

At the moment, most peeps are either stupid, crazy, or both. No reason to stoop to that level, though. There are enough amazing people out there. Listen to some good music... Have a hot cocoa. A jacuzzi if you can get one.

Leave the lowest common denominator stuff to the barbarians.

"Any major dude with half a heart surely will tell you my friend.
Any minor world that breaks apart falls together again..."

Love & Light man.

In dog and wolves, and often in other social animals, violence is not always met with violence, often an attack is met with submission or retreat.

According to the examples set by other animals submission or retreat are good alternatives to violence.

In many social animal groups there are what might be considered laws, a range of accepted behaviors defined largely by unacceptable behavior that is frequently met with a group reaction meant to correct or punish such behavior.

in addition animals have sets of right and wrong in terms of territory and property as well, for example dogs act differently towards animals that have come into what they perceive as their territory verses animals that they encounter in neutral territory, they perceive that it is wrong for an animal to be upon their area without permission, while it is acceptable for an animal to be in neutral territory.
How animals behave in terms of property, territory, family, parenting, mating and eating all indicate that they self govern according to rules in a non-random manner.
Right and wrong in terms of rules of behavior seem to exist in every social animal.

the concept of evolution does not include advancement or improvement, thus no population can de-evolve. in evolution no species or population moves towards or away from an ideal

i believe that morality stems from instinct itself, but that it is often informed by cultural ontology, for example there is cultural variation in our species in terms of what is viewed as moral and what is viewed as immoral or amoral.

I would rather say nature is inherently moral, just like humans.

Nature dictates morality: we're all driven by primary impulses we can't escape from or ignore. These primary impulses eventually dictate what our interests are. With these interests, in any social situation there is always a mode of operating that would lead to the best outcome for everyone involved and social creatures tend towards acting according to it. There is a natural understanding in intelligent social creatures, of this principle:"what kind of rules could i expect others to obey, and could others expect me to obey, that i could live with?" But the best possible outcome isn't always the best outcome imaginable.

For instance: capitalism is an inherently moral system: it proposes basic rights like the right of ownership. But it's not VERY moral.

Imo, capitalism is inherently amoral...it has no regard for "principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong." I think this is rather evident throughout the history of "true capitalism" and American-led "protectionist capitalism" or "state capitalism".

I think the primary impulses you reference are amoral as well...they dictate survival, not morality. This survival drive, not morality, is pervasive throughout nature.

Morality is a byproduct of Maslow's hierarchy and springs up when a certain level of security/comfort have been achieved...when you have to survive at the most base level, morals have no bearing. When it comes down to personal survival, morals go right out the window (as we see in numerous examples in the present and throughout history). Morality is a byproduct of the relative comfort afforded by societies. Humans in a "blank" state have no morals...morals are mapped onto them by societies (which is why morality varies from society to society). Thus, humans are inherently amoral...which is not to say morals serve no purpose; more that humans are not born with morals. We do what we need to do to survive...morals are not inherent to this.

Good point. It has long been known in the parts of the world where abject poverty and starvation are the norm that death by starving is called "a dog's death." This is because a man or woman who is dying by starvation or who is watching their child suffer will happily, instantly and without thinking twice, throw all that morality and civilized s _ _ t right out the window.

We're not born with language either, but humans are inherently linguistic.

I used capitalism as an example to illustrate that a society can apear to be completely amoral because it's morality is only existant at a very elementary level.

Primary impulses are indeed not moral themselves. Yet, because they're forced upon us by nature and therefore impossible to escape from, they force morality upon us. They're the cause of all our desires, all our needs and all of what we call interests.
Our nature forces us to perceive pain as something 'bad' when it is inflicted upon us, so at least it gives us a private morality towards ourselves.
Social animals have the inherent succeptability to the notion:"I don't want others to inflict pain on me, i can understand that others don't want to be hurt either, therefore the other person can expect me, to expect him to behave according to a certain code and viceversa".

Morals don't go right out of the window when survival is at stake: morality is no luxury but a bitter nessecity in social species, there is always some basic level of morality still present in people. Criminals may appear immoral, yet criminal organisations often have very strong moral codes that just happen to apply only within the organisation itself.

It's not morality wich we lack, but the ability to identify others as moral entities to wich our morality applies. In that sense there indeed is a maslow-like pyramid structure in our morality: Firstly it applies only to ourselves, secondly to the ones close to us, and so the more remote the other person is, the less we are able to identify the other as a moral entity.

I would say that if we didn't have some level of morality in all of us, we wouldn't speak off immorality: no-one would ever blame a tiger of being sadistic when he eats his prey alive. Because for a solitary animal like a tiger, such an acusation wouldn't make sense.

Isn't that same behavior indicative of morality?
That situations dictate morality?

morality cannot be rejected, any inclination for rejection stems from the moral instinct which discriminates
One could reject moral pretenses however, as well as any absolute notions of what is and is not moral.
Clearly group morality does not exist in the individual and cannot impose itself thus, but it does influence individual moral sense.

As with many aspects of personality the behavioral inclinations of our species relate to genetics and environment.

Are we? I don't think I agree with that. We have an inherent capacity for language, but we are not inherently linguistic. Look at children with aspergers syndrome, look at babies who are neglected, look at babies who are born in one country and adopted by people from another; the language is not inherent, the capacity for it is. I'd posit that it's the same as with morals; just because you have the capacity for X does not make X inherent. Humans can fly spaceships, that doesn't mean space-travel is inherent to humans.


Sorry, I still don't follow...at what level are you claiming capitalism is moral?


Our impulses are things like staying alive, not starving, staying clothed, sheltered, etc. These do not force morality on us. Some people choose morality. There is nothing moral about not wanting to starve...choosing to starve because you'd rather not negatively impact someone else is not an inherent value of being human. If it was, people would not steal or engage in other necessity-based crimes. This passage does nothing to further the claim that morals are inherent, it merely shows how one with morals chooses to act. Those morals came from society, not from some inherent human quality.


Once society breaks down morals do go out the window. That's why we see looting and killing and rape and a myriad of other "immoral" activities. If anything, this only furthers my point that morals are the result of social constructs and thus not inherent to human beings, but are rather, attributes of the groups they construct. Additionally, criminal enterprises erect structures of ethics more than morals. In fact, most criminal organizations have ethical codes of engaging in immoral behavior. No matter how you put it, laws on stealing/snitching/murder/etc are not morals, they are ethics.


This points to society as well. A human in the wilderness by himself/herself has no need for morals...the need for morals does not appear until you begin to have social interactions with some regularity...before that it's all survival and morality has no place in survival. You do whatever you need to in order to survive. If I drop you in some wild jungle by yourself, the only time morals would even begin to enter the equation is if you encountered other people...again pointing to morality as a social construct.


This really confuses me. Who in their right mind would call a tiger sadistic for eating his prey alive (or any predator for that matter)?

This just makes no sense as far as I see it. It's all about survival...tigers don't kill/cook their prey but this has nothing to do with morals at all. There is no morality in nature...a tiger does what it needs to do to survive...a black widow is not immoral when she kills her mate...a bird is not immoral when it leaves its egg in another birds nest to be raised by that bird...this is just nature/life dancing the infinite dance of survival.

Sure morality exists in nature, just it isn't our social morality.

Going against moral code is itself a moral code that is just alternative.

Morality cannot be prescribed, so a difference of morals between ourselves and another species cannot negate the existence of morality in nature.

Capitolism itself seems amoral, that is not immoral, rather that is without morals, as opposed to contrary to average morals. It can function in accord with or in contrast to any set of morals and inherently is neither bad nor good. So many forms of capitalism exist that it would be unwise to refer to capitalism in any inclusive sense, for example one can contrast the form that capitalism takes in Denmark with the form it takes in the USA.

In nature there often exist trade relations akin to capitalism, for example several acacias essentially pay ants to protect them, the relationship is not that of dependancy but is akin to an exchange of goods for services, this is very much akin to capitalism.

Morality as a stand alone term is nearly worthless, whose morality? What moral code? In terms of what moral context?
To address and make claims about morality without being specific is vacuous.

Social constructs are a part of human nature.

Now about survival: why would you want to live? there is no reason other than that nature forces you to want to stay alive. There is indeed nothing moral about that so far.
Untill the moment that you indeed, affected by those instincts, want to stay alive. From that moment on, you cannot but judge anything that endangers your chances of survival as 'bad', or 'undesireable'.

So i do not entirely agree that there is nothing moral about not wanting to starve. The fact that this desire is imposed on us means that we're no longer neutral towards life and that neutrality is not even an option.

Once you can say that something is undesireable, you can say that in social situations, some ways of behaving would be more desireable than others.
If we cannot be neutral towards life, it means that we cannot but make the distinction between positives and negatives.

We are inherently social creatures, so we are inherently affected by social codes. All humans have inherently social tendencies: most people turn mad when they're isolated for too long, seeing others suffer triggers brain activity that is the same as when we're in pain ourselves, the ability to identify ourselves with others, to recognise emotions for instance, transcends through all cultural barriers: generally people can recognise emotions from facial expressions, even from faces of people from other cultures.

It is this combination: that we are inherently social and that we are inherently non-neutral, makes that we are inherently non-neutral towards social behaviour and social codes. It makes that we can make the distinction between reasonable and non-reasonable codes. It makes that we have expectations towards others, can hold eachother acountable for things, and so on. It makes that we can anticipate on what other would expect from us, that we can see how we can be hold acountable for things.

It makes no sense to blame a tiger of being sadistic because a tiger IS neutral towards the pain of it's prey. Chimpansee's, gorilla's and humans though, can be sadistic. Sadism is a form of moral behaviour because it's morally negative. It's not neutral.
It is not neutral towards the wellbeing of others.

Being non-neutral towards the wellbeing of others, is being moral.

Well written, I agree.

dogs can also be sadistic or even sympathetic, as an example,

Humans have the capacity for social constructs...that does not make any specific social construct inherent to human nature.

Your argument is a bit misleading.

I don't have to be neutral to life in order to be amoral. I can be living with the desire to keep on living and be amoral. Morals are not required just because survival is threatened. For example I can ensure my survival through a slew of immoral actions. What of it? Without a society, there's no one to deem my actions as immoral. You miss out on the fact that things that are immoral in one society are completely acceptable in others. Again, this points to a capacity for morality and morality as a human construct, not as an inherent human quality.

As to the tiger...weren't you just arguing the other side of that? If I play along with your role reversal...how do you know it's neutral towards the pain? That's a claim you are making with no evidence, same with the apes. And what of sociopaths? Sociopaths are a gaping hole in your argument as well.

It's nice to believe that nature is moral (although you contradicted that prior claim by changing sides on the tiger...so now I'm confused as to where you stand on this)...it's nice to believe that humans are inherently moral...but we see that they're not. When society breaks down we see morality break down (something you have not addressed)...the fact that morality changes from culture to culture also points to the fact that it's not an inherent human trait. Humans can exist without society, society cannot exist without humans.

There is no base morality...as Albert points out...thus morality is not inherent to humans but is the product of many other things that result from human interactions. And albert...the entire point of my position has been about the amorality of humans and nature...so yea, as I said, capitalism is amoral (and I even hinted at the distinctions you are making)

There are still a number of points from the earlier posts that were not addressed...I'm thinking we should probably agree to disagree, because to me, it's quite clear that there is no inherent morality to humans.

As is all too common in such arguments, the debate here seems to have devolved into a discussion of semantics.

Sure, these words have multiple and sometimes differently inflected meanings... but ETHICS & MORALS are synonyms in most thesauruses.

Besides, isn't the question of how "natural" our morals might be somewhat irrelevant?

We have them, and no one seems to be arguing that we abandon them...

In practice, I find that an individual's expression of morality is... wait for it.... individual.

My morality differs from those of my parents. And it is quite a bit removed from any societal "norm."

I find that a more useful aspect of this is that one's morality vis a vis others (and not just other humans) is in direct proportion to how much one views the other as actually being part of one's sense of self. In other words, the more you identify another as being connected (and the stronger one feels that connection) is the mitigating factor in how "moral" one will behave towards them.

I tend to see things in a very holistic light. Thus, while others feel no qualms with chopping down trees for little or no reason, I find it abhorrent.

I have seen one homeless person on the edge of survival give his only blanket to another homeless person and spend the night freezing. This is not a factor of merely survival trumps all. The compassion was generated by the fact that the 1st homeless person recognized the 2nd as being similar enough to himself so as to qualify in his mind as a member of his existential family. I have seen people in completely lawless and broken social situations behave extremely morally. Poor people are often the first to give you the very shirt off of their back.

Some people only place themselves in this conceptual bubble. They tend to be viewed as socio-paths. Most put their immediate friends and family into this bubble as well. A good majority include their local community, religuous group, or ethnic tribe into some ring of this bubble. Nations extend this bubble to include anyone who qualifies as being a member of the abstract concept of the nation they live in.

Spiritual people, and people who have used entheogens in particular, tend to have a much broader sense of self. It often includes all of humanity, all of the Earth's ecosystems... and usually expands to eventually include the entire Universe and beyond. This is because, in truth, there is no other. What you do unto the least of them, you do as well unto me etc.

The finer your perception of interconectivity is, the larger your bubble will be. Thus, I can not stomach factory farming of animals, vivesection, or the like despite their potential benefits to humans. A lot of people have no problem with eugenics, collateral damage, or other forms of what (to me) seem clearly immoral behaviors.

The equation is simple. The greater your spiritual development, the greater your perception and awareness of unity, the greater your moral and compassionate behaivior.

Ethics are systems of morals...that's not synonymy.

I stand by my conviction that nature (and by extension, humankind) is inherently amoral. We choose our own morality based on a near-infinite number of factors. The above post kind of drives that home (although I don't think that was the intent).

I think morality stems from a sense of empathy; conversely 'psychopathy' has as one of its most consistent and identifiable characteristics an absence of this ability to empathise.

Theres been alot of good scientific work done in this field in the past 20-30 years and there certainly exists alot of hard evidence for a strong genetic element to how individuals respond in a situation whereby a moral or amoral reaction can be elicited.This is not to absolve an individual of the responsibility for their actions as the genetic loading must be interpreted in light of the effect of the environment upon it ie genetic loading with an abusive upbringing can cause psychopathy to become apparent, whereas the same genetics in a loving upbringing will not cause psychopathic traits to emerge in the individual.This has also been confirmed by PET studies, showing consistent anomalies in unrelated psychopaths compared to those who are 'normal'.

The implications for these studies in terms of that contentious topic of 'free-will' are interesting to say the least.

There was a great program on last night on BBC2 in the UK (Horizon) relating to whether or not we are all born as good or evil individuals which echoes alot of what Ive mentioned in this post.