Charlie Coleman wrote: > At 02:22 PM 3/11/2008 -0400, Ed Leafe wrote: >> On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:51 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote: >> >>> But what I'm wondering is where you get your basis of morals. If all we >> really have is ourselves as the basis, then who is to say >>> who is right and wrong? >> Did it ever occur to you that religions got their morals from >> society, and not the other way around? > > I was trying to find my notes on some classes/discussions/studies I had on > the origin of societies. I think they had some good citations there. But I > couldn't find 'em. But the summary understanding I recall is that societies > end up being formed based on the family units that originally found the > society.
So you think these "family units" that will LATER join forces with other families are NOT a society in itself? What is the minimum of people you need to constitute a society according to you? And, in the past, the familial/tribal groups already have a basis > of their 'religious' understanding before they form into the more > encompassing/enlarging society. > > I'll have to dig around some more. I remember it was an interesting study. > >> Every other social animal in the world has an innate sense of how >> to >> recognize their own and how to deal with them. Why would people be any >> different? > > Hmm... Generally, the "social animals" commit immediate violence upon > anyone else of their kind that trespass in their territory - and, in like > kind, the goal of the younger is to kill off the older/weaker to ensure > their own survival. Most also attempt to mate with as many others of their > kind as possible (not all, but most). It seems our "western" laws and > "morals" are in contradiction to those aspects, and probably many others. > I think you are completely wrong in this aspect. There are social animals who do not claim ownership of a certain territory (of course, the same definition of territoriality will imply aggression to any trespasser) and don't attack their own kind. It depends on the species and if the conditions decree that either behavior will be significantly better for survival. Human social animal, without any religious views will protect their elders instead of trying to kill them off, so will elephants. Maybe YOUR species does not protect the elder but believe me it's an exception, my species does protect them. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
