Re: Sociobiology explains one more aspect of morality

From: Gary Gerrard (tseneca_at_alltel.net)
Date: 09/02/04 

Date: 2 Sep 2004 11:52:34 -0700

"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message news:<2pm775Fm2b7tU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Gary Gerrard wrote:
>
> >
> > Why do some people who consider themselves highly moral kill other
> > people?
>
> Self defense, sometimes. And a general cleaning out of junk at other
> times. From time to time the Hive must be purged to insure its health
> and longevity.
>
> > Because they do not view them with other-consciousness and
> > therefore as their equal. Don't belive this. Why do some people eat
> > hambergers? Because they do not see cows as their equal--with
> > other-consciousness. The extreme animal rights advocates do, however.
> > Hence the claims of animal rights. But even the most extreme animal
> > rights advocate does not apply the same logic/empathy to vegetables,
> > which are also living organisms.
>
> Like they have a choice? Since God did not see fit to grant humans the
> ability to synthesize protein directly from inorganic substances, we
> either get our nourishment from other living things or we perish. And
> how do you know that rocks aren't conscious?
>
> > But they do not have any
> > consciousness, at least not that we are able to see the world through
> > like we do our fellow animals. Do you suppose that the animal rights
> > people slap mosquitos that bite them, or step on cockroaches in their
> > kitchen. They probably do, but some Buddhist monks would not.
>
> Animal righters are pestilential. They slow down the progress of medical
> science. If they want to treat their own pets like people, then let
> them. But if they trash a lab that is developing a treatment for a
> disease the plauges either me or mine, they are dangeours to my health.
> There is nothing about a PETS freak the a bullet in the head would not
> cure. They are Luddites and a rash upon the body politic.
> >
> > We can find many examples of what I would call pre-moral behavior in
> > social animals many degrees of relation separate from humans. Any
> > social animal will exhibit behavior that show restraint in the use of
> > the individual animal's physical ability. For most mammals whose
> > males engage in some form of physical combat in competition for a
> > group of females to mate with will not fight to the death, but rather
> > stop short. Is this "moral" behavior? I don't think so, but it
> > certainly is restrained behavior that has the potential for providing
> > a reproductive advantage.
> >
> > Sorry I got so longwinded. (not proofread)
>
> You are naive. Life is struggle. Life is pain. And ultimately Life is
> Death. If God wanted us to be nice he would have given us wings and harps.
>
> Bob Kolker

My naiveté is in believing that people are capable of absorbing
other's ideas and considering them on their merit, rather than through
their own established view of the world. Descartes did not say, "I
think it, therefore it is."

Quantcast