Where did morals come from?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If you don't include that part of the definition of 'nature' you really don't have a word at all. There's no use for it.

Yes you do. Words have different meanings. Type in the word "natural" into dictionary.com. The first entry has 13 different usages of the adjective "natural" Your usage is reflected in definitions 6 and 10. Those are completely valid uses of the term natural. I'm using natural in the sense of "existing as a part of or determined by nature", definition 2a in the 2nd entry.
Natural is a word with many meanings; perhaps it would be better if we'd use synonyms in such a situation

Of course civilization is dictated by natural laws, and we have to follow them, however, we use the natural laws to change nature. So using the natural laws to change nature is not natural.

I'm not even talking about "natural laws." I'm just saying that what we do is the natural outcropping of our traits.We change nature in the sense that we change the wild. However, I disagree that this is "unnatural." That Quinn quote implies that, by changing the world around us, we've left nature or somehow have broken with the rest of the world. I disagree with this. I think that, though we can greatly change nature, our basis for doing this and our ability to do so lies in natural abilities. We've no more left the natural order than any other animlas that use their traits to survive.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Sandman


Those other types of ownership haven't 'always existed' and can not be justified by pointing to Bushmen, dogs and toddlers.

No, they haven't always existed. Rather, they come into existance as a society evolves. The point of the trinket hypo. is to show that their is some innate possesion desire in man. The application of that desire changes as societal sophistication grows, but the desire has been there in some form. I object to the idea that man's desire to have things of their own is some foreign concept. Its always been there at some basic level.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sandman

What about socialism (in the Marxist use of the word)?

He used socialism and communism interchangably.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I'm not even talking about "natural laws." I'm just saying that what we do is the natural outcropping of our traits.We change nature in the sense that we change the wild. However, I disagree that this is "unnatural." That Quinn quote implies that, by changing the world around us, we've left nature or somehow have broken with the rest of the world. I disagree with this. I think that, though we can greatly change nature, our basis for doing this and our ability to do so lies in natural abilities. We've no more left the natural order than any other animlas that use their traits to survive.

The thing is that humans have the ability to create any order that they wish. That's what seperates us from other animals. Animals only have one possible order if any social order at all.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The thing is that humans have the ability to create any order that they wish. That's what seperates us from other animals. Animals only have one possible order if any social order at all.

I think that that's a function of intelligence, not some other type of metaphysical distinction. If some other animal develops a similar intellect they'll also be able to create any order that they wish. That's why I think we' haven't left nature, we're just using the tools nature gave us. Every other animal uses their natural tools in the way they can. We're no different in that sense. They only real difference between us and them is the tools that we have developed.

[johncmcleod]

Edit: nevermind

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I think that that's a function of intelligence, not some other type of metaphysical distinction. If some other animal develops a similar intellect they'll also be able to create any order that they wish. That's why I think we' haven't left nature, we're just using the tools nature gave us. Every other animal uses their natural tools in the way they can. We're no different in that sense. They only real difference between us and them is the tools that we have developed.

No the real and significant difference is that we create our own order and they don't. Thats why you can say that animal social orders are natural, but human social orders are not. Because humans can change nature.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Thats why you can say that animal social orders are natural, but human social orders are not.

True, our societal order is variable. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that fact doesn't mean that we're unnatural and somehow apart from the natural order.

[johncmcleod]

Humans don't live within the ecological system. If they did, a) they wouldn't have so much control over it, and b) we'd coexist with nature. This isn't the case. We wipe out the ecological systems around us, not naturally, but by simply destroying it. And this isn't done by overhunting. We don't chop down trees for food. We simply destroy the ecological systems in order for us to have more room.

This is different from any other organism.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Humans don't live within the ecological system. If they did, a) they wouldn't have so much control over it, and b) we'd coexist with nature. This isn't the case. We wipe out the ecological systems around us, not naturally, but by simply destroying it. And this isn't done by overhunting. We don't chop down trees for food. We simply destroy the ecological systems in order for us to have more room.

This is different from any other organism.

We live within the eco-system by definition. We still eat, die, decompose and provide food to worms. We've just carved out a particularly large niche in this system. However, we're part of the system no matter how much we alter it. If we change our eco-system so much that we can no longer live in it, we will go extinct, just like all other organisms who adapted in ways that ultimately led to their demise. The eco-system would still be there; we'd be gone. The exception to this is if we somehow destroyed the world utterly. Then the eco-system would be gone as well.


We're different from any other organism only because no other organism has our same skill set. Give that same skill set to another mammal and they'd do the same type of things. Other animals over populate until their numbers dwindle through starvation. Humanity has found a way to produce food to survive with a high population level, a population that needs more space. If other animals could permanently raise their access to food (if they could do agricultre) their populations would permanently rise as well.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Wycoff

No, they haven't always existed. Rather, they come into existance as a society evolves. The point of the trinket hypo. is to show that their is some innate possesion desire in man. The application of that desire changes as societal sophistication grows, but the desire has been there in some form. I object to the idea that man's desire to have things of their own is some foreign concept. Its always been there at some basic level.

People still like having trinkets. And that's as far as the innateness goes. You might as well argue that a tiger jumping through a flaming hoop is innate. After all, its ability to jump has always been there at some basic level, it just the 'application' of this ability which has changed.

Oh, and society doesn't just 'evolve' like some organism. A lot of social arrangements serve no purpose. Others serve only a few people. Others harm the society. I wonder how many 'other types of ownership' are like this?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wycoff


True, our societal order is variable. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that fact doesn't mean that we're unnatural and somehow apart from the natural order.

Our social order became unnatural when we changed it. There can only be one natural way, not two or more.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Sandman


People still like having trinkets. And that's as far as the innateness goes. You might as well argue that a tiger jumping through a flaming hoop is innate. After all, its ability to jump has always been there at some basic level, it just the 'application' of this ability which has changed.

No, that analogy doesn't make sense. I'd say a tiger's jumping ability is innate. I'd say that its innate to human nature to want to possess things. The applications of those traits differ through situations.

Oh, and society doesn't just 'evolve' like some organism. A lot of social arrangements serve no purpose. Others serve only a few people. Others harm the society.

What does the Human appendix do?

Societies certainly do evolve and change, and change from a variety of different stimuli. Some quick examples off the top of my head:

The Black Death dropped population throughout Europe, making labor much more expensive and therefore people more valuable. New views at looking at people lead to new schools of thought and philosophies, encouraging a more inquisitive intellectual class, setting the foundations for the Reformation and ultimately the end of Feudalism

Technological advancements during the Industrial Revolution led to rapid urbanization. Rapid urbanization changed perspectives on many existing social/ political/ philosophical areas. New political groups emerged and, after conflict, the end result was mass democracy

[Kidlicious]

When a society changes from a hunter gatherer society to a agricultural society (for example) the social order changes. A new morality is needed for that social order. The new rulers (I'm assuming that there are new rulers) get to decide that new morality. If the old rulers got to decide the social order would never change.

Gradually as land becomes more scarce a new morality is needed as the social order further changes. A completely new morality is needed with capitalism and so forth.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Our social order became unnatural when we changed it. There can only be one natural way, not two or more.

I guess that's where our ultimate disagreement lies. I don't think that there's any predetermined natural social order. I don't believe in natural rights or natural philosophical laws. I'm saying natural as in we're just as much invloved in the eco-system of this planet as any other animal; that we came upon our intelligence, our society, and our technological progress through natural means (evolved them) rather than some outside/ unnatural means (divine intervention); and, taking those things as granted, humanity putting their natural skills to use through an agricultural society does not constitute Humanity leaving the eco-system or controlling the eco-system.

EDIT: if you've lost what I'm talking about, look at my first response to Macleod's Quinn quote.