Natural Rights

[GePap]

But tabboos are rare, and they are not even universal. Incests and Cannibalism are the tow biggest NO NO's, but neither are universal.

The notion of reciprocity you mention is based nmore on status quo and pragmatism: I certainly think it can work, but it runs counter to the claim that repciprocity is inherent and derived from some moral sense.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Gepap
To speak of reciprocity and morality within wolf society is not going to get us very far

I thought that it was unusual to bring wolf/ape societies (and ostensibly wolf/ape norms/customs) into the debate, but since reciprocity/morality applies as much (if not more) than norms/customs I didn't see the need to question where the debate was going.

So, the fact that the alpha lacks arbitrary power of life over any other wolf is a result of the fact that one wolf is very unlike to be strong enough to be abl tyo arbitrarilly kill any other wolf without weakening itself to the point that a third party will unseat it from power.

This is incorrect -- an alpha could kill pups without any difficulty. Yet the alpha never does so, even when the pups are not its own (i.e., when the alpha has just unseated the previous alpha, which would biologically be the time that an alpha would benefit from killing off the pups for purposes of furthering its own genes).

You claim reciproicity is absed on some inherent moral choice.

You've reversed the order -- the inherent moral choice is based on reciprocity, not the other way around. Reciprocity derives from equality and consistency, morality derives from reciprocity.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah but Bebro, you speak of not killing within the group: fine, I accept that, sicne you are correct, no group that allowed intercine warfare could make it. BUt see, the prohibition against "murder" is not then created to protect members, but to protect the group and its survival.

Protecting the members is the key for group survival, so I don´t think you can easily separate one goal from the other.

Why should this reasoning then apply to individuas outside the group, whose deaths mean nothing to the group., or may even benefit the group, by allowing the group to gain greater resources? Every other human band is a competitor to the survival of yours, so why should the same norm you apply inside your group to prevent inntercine warfare then be applied to competitors?

You seem to imply that group norms and identities are fixed forever. But there´s a lot of historical evidence that this is not the case, think eg. about the development from local to national identities from the dark ages to the 17/18th century in Europe. So it is absolutely possible that certain groups go through a learning process while interacting with other groups. Former competitors can even get merged together, so that they form new identities with common values, norms, beliefs etc. then they are not interested in endless competition any longer, at least not in military ways.

Why can they such things, despite their specific norms and their role as at least potential competitors etc? And if they do it then there´s theoretically absolutely the chance that this happens also worldwide, at least I´d say that this is not ruled out per se.

Also, regarding group survival: basically, if several groups do still compete, you have two possibilities - wipe out your opponents, or come to a kind of agreement. Thing is, at a certain level of warfare open confrontation makes no sense anymore, especially if your group had tried that before. Violent conflicts (especially conflicts between individuals or very small groups) always have a certain risk for my own group too. It is not that everyone is clearly superior to his potential competitors. (Here I could use exactly the same arguments you brought up for the wolves, I think your separation of pragmatism and moral in this example is problematic, since eg. a law against murder in human societies is of course not only a moral thing, but also highly pragmatic)

So is it then wiser to risk enormous losses or the entire group for a relatively small chance to reach total victory? No, I think at a certain point it is absolutely logical to accept at least the other group insofar that you accept their right of existance (or, if "right" is too strong, their fundamental interest - survival) as well as your own. If you do that, if follows then that you do not try to act against this fundamental interest, and you certainly expect then that the others treat you in the same way.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

I thought that it was unusual to bring wolf/ape societies (and ostensibly wolf/ape norms/customs) into the debate, but since reciprocity/morality applies as much (if not more) than norms/customs I didn't see the need to question where the debate was going.

I brought them in as examples from where humans come from. As social mammals ourselves it only follows that we would share some charateristics, specially with apes.

This is incorrect -- an alpha could kill pups without any difficulty. Yet the alpha never does so, even when the pups are not its own (i.e., when the alpha has just unseated the previous alpha, which would biologically be the time that an alpha would benefit from killing off the pups for purposes of furthering its own genes).

I seriously doubt the adult wolves that take care of the pups would be very enthused about their genetic herritage ebing wiped out, and do nothing to stop such acts. Interstinghly, Male lions, members of another social mammal gorup do attempt to kill males cubs from time to time, to cut out possible competitors. But since we do not know why the wolves do what they do, its moot.

You've reversed the order -- the inherent moral choice is based on reciprocity, not the other way around. Reciprocity derives from equality and consistency, morality derives from reciprocity.

And as I said, it is not reasonable to assume that an utter stranger will view you as an equal, since you have no evidence to show that, nor do you have none to disprove it either. Which only leaves pragmatic decisions as being reasonable under that circumstance. If you had a reaosnable expectation that they would view you as an equal, maybe, but as I said, I do not think that human beings inherently view their all their fellow species members as equal, not in the natural state.

Protecting the members is the key for group survival, so I don´t think you can easily separate one goal from the other.

So you have norms against fellow members killing each other, and do things against outsiders to secure fellow members, including killing them.

So is it then wiser to risk enormous losses or the entire group for a relatively small chance to reach total victory? No, I think at a certain point it is absolutely logical to accept at least the other group insofar that you accept their right of existance (or, if "right" is too strong, their fundamental interest - survival) as well as your own. If you do that, if follows then that you do not try to act against this fundamental interest, and you certainly expect then that the others treat you in the same way.

What you are describing is a pragmatic choice, a policy choice, and not somehting driven by morality at first. As for the second part: there is a differnce between seeking extermination, and assimilation, on YOUR terms. The most logical thing for any gorup is to make the others part of your group, for then your group is stronger: the only time you may have an interest inleaving a group alone is if you vies them as too weak to be an issue, which means your 'respect for them" is again driven by pragmatic decisions, and not by a feeling that they have some inherent reason to survive.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
Interstinghly, Male lions, members of another social mammal gorup do attempt to kill males cubs from time to time, to cut out possible competitors.

Admittedly going more off-topic than usual, but the difference here is that, unlike wolves, apes, and humans, lions do have a natural social heirarchy. A pride can only support one or two males, since males aren't able to hunt (the mane makes stalking all but impossible) and thus are essentially nothing more than sperm factories.

And as I said, it is not reasonable to assume that an utter stranger will view you as an equal, since you have no evidence to show that, nor do you have none to disprove it either.

At this point it comes down to a matter of dialogue -- if two people (or two groups) are fundamentally incapable of communicating with each other, then there really is no way of knowing that the other person/group isn't going to stab you in the back (or whatever) since their thought processes remain quite alien. But in order for communication to be possible, the two people/groups must reciprocate, for the reasons that I'd previously given. Whether or not it's possible to "choose" not to communicate in this day and age is a difficult question ("I cannot communicate with you" is a contradictory statement), but I agree that in the past it would have certainly been possible for a person/group to conclude that communication with another person/group was impossible.

[Berzerker]

To go even more off topic, male lions are the real killers in prides. Whenever real muscle is needed, that's when the males get off their butts. They deal with males from other prides, but I saw a film about "Eternal Enemies" - lions and hyenas - and the female lions often get pushed around by the more numerous hyenas. During one encounter, the male lion came running in and tracked down the lead female hyena and broke her back when tackling her - game over, game over man! Those male lions are brutal!!!

[GePap]

I think the language barrier most certainly is a big chasm for peoples to ovecome, speically back when langages were far more numerous.

I would disagee a bit over how little social hierarchy wolves and some apes, like Gorrillas, have. Akllg roups kbnow there will be one leader (or a leading pair for wolves), the question being who gets to be that alpha team, or who gets to be the leader of the band (what are gorrila bands called?) Even within lion gorups, the males are not secure (which is why they kill possible opponents as cubs). Then there are groups like Elephants, which don;t really kil thier own in any way, but do have well set matriarchal herds.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap

What you are describing is a pragmatic choice, a policy choice, and not somehting driven by morality at first.

Again, I don´t see how you can separate moral from pragmatism. Law against murder is pragmatic too. Moral and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. I would even say moral rules that are not at least somehow pragmatic have no chance in society.

If you had a reaosnable expectation that they would view you as an equal, maybe, but as I said, I do not think that human beings inherently view their all their fellow species members as equal, not in the natural state.

The pure fact that all humans (and so far only humans) are basicly reasonable beings does more support a view were you see others as somehow equal. Whatever they are, more or less intelligent, strong or weak, they are able to act reasonable. To think they are not equal in this point, you must assume that they are not reasonable beings first, which is not reasonable in itself, so it means it is totally contradictory.