Part I - response to Elisabeth Part II - response to Bosco
Elisabeth's views are appreciated. Unfortunately she could not name five living people that she would consider moral. Reading her views, she agrees that it is difficult for humans to live a moral life (which suggest it is not normal). Hence society has developed norms and moral codes, or as she terms, "infrastructures". Elisabeth then goes on to suggest individuals have "human ability to navigate within this infrastructure with discernment" i.e. pick and choose, and select their own paths. Then she provides a warm-fuzzy list (see below). She does not add to this - abortion, divorce, casual sex, single parents, unwed mothers, etc. on demand. This is precisely what Mario has been saying in his "Rock Solid Moral Codes" of an established moral or religious organization. As they say, "All sounds great ... The problem is in the details and fine print." Elizabeth then goes on to thinking-out-loud and ends up with many suppositions. The lion or elephant societies do not have codes, rules and regulation. Following their own instincts, they are likely to live "more moral" lives in keeping with their ecological environment. For this reason these species have endured for many-many millennia. Yet human civilizations since early times has had the need; and developed moral and legal codes for people to follow on the pain / fear of punishment. Man is NOT moral. This is with and likely even more, without behavioral codes (see four types of codes in part II). Humans with an animal biology, are selfish, emotional and reflexive with an animal instinct for his / her needs and survival. Humans find a need to be dominant and has a limited capacity to think. They are the only animal species that kill their own species. Of course they kill other species, like other animals. Yet, unlike other hunting animals, humans do not limit the killing for their (human) survival, but far in excess of their need i.e. they are very wasteful. Kind Regards, GL --------------- Elisabeth Carvalho: You've both posed some interesting perspectives on this subject. This is set up by human beings and is dependent on the cultural and social norms at the time. The second is the human ability to navigate within this infrastructure with discernment. The ability to empathise, forgive, aid, support, sustain, persevere. It is this that perhaps Santosh means is innate in human beings, to be found across cultures and instinctively delved into when the situation calls for it or the answer is not provided in the infrastructural set-up. --- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Human beings are capable of living moral lives. That does not mean they do > as a matter of routine or especially if their animal instincts are > challenged. If human beings are moral people and lead moral lives, are part > of their human nature, why does every society have laws, rules and > regulations? As you have said in your post, even ancient societies had moral > codes to live by. --------------- Santosh Helekar: > 1. Morality is a fundamental part of human nature with a sound biological and > evolutionary basis. _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
