Hey Amanda, It's a great pity that I could not afford the time or cash to pop over to see you when I was in Sydney the other month, I think we missed out on some good beer and talk, perhaps the next time.
Yes that is great insight. We of course cannot know (just yet) how other animals feel or emote or reason. As to why we call our codes of behaviour morals, I guess that is simply the label we humans use to describe such things. On May 12, 2:50 pm, AmandaRheen <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know what she would think. Couching the question in that way > is at some level denying lions a version of a behaviour code separate > to human definition and values. I know that lion mothers do attack a > new male lion in an attempt to defend her cubs likely deaths – does > she think he deserves it or is it just a series of justifiably felt > actions and reactions played out in the context of lion capable > courses of action? Similar to people really at the end of the day me > thinks. I suspect people only call their codes of behaviour morals > because we either see ourselves as ‘not animals’ or we are not > objective enough to observe our own behaviours the way we observe > other species. > > My original response to PSK was focused on the words ‘natural law’ > rather than the word ‘deserving’ I was thinking more along the lines > of Newton’s Law – you know equal, opposite reactions and all that. > > It makes me realize that I don’t conceptualize the word ‘deserve’ very > clearly or often. It usually surprises me to hear someone else say > “someone deserved something” Especially regarding adults, it seems > that what others call ‘deserves’ – I am more inclined to think of as > an outcome gotten from varying combinations of persistence and luck. > I guess in the case of Osama the persistence and luck was claimed by > the other party within the interaction. > > On May 12, 7:19 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Derserve in this context is again about morality, and so I must say > > that it is a human concept and takes no place in the natural word, > > apart from of course humanity being part of nature. > > > Would a lion mother think that a male lion who eat her cub and then > > fell to it's death deserves it? > > > On May 12, 9:12 am, AmandaRheen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Maybe it does come back to what you say – a crude neutralizing of > > > equation. Maybe it is connected to the Golden Rule – do unto others > > > as you would have them do unto you. Most other religions or > > > philosophies have some similar sort of rule phrased a bit > > > differently. > > > If not connected to something prescribed then natural law really is > > > about realigning a sense of acceptable power between people. Maybe as > > > a species people do have an innate sense of acceptable power limits in > > > that respect regardless of culture and history. I have sometimes > > > wondered if my own tendency to not taking revenge is actually a > > > behaviour or attitude in myself that makes me a bit defective in > > > comparison to others. > > > > On May 12, 1:35 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I was reading about natural law..and a though came to my mind ...in > > > > connection to revenge...and the concept of 'deserving' what someone > > > > gets..recent example osama deserved to die for what he did...what i > > > > mean is...is it natural...or universally presumed ...like in the > > > > language to 'forgive' ...not give ...give back....give back what is > > > > due...the same injury...i cant go into detail at the moment but this > > > > what the jist is...is it a crude neutralising of equation...is that > > > > what it all comes down to in simple terms- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
