Collarchat.com

Create a
Free Account
As the Collar Turns:
Collarchat.com - BDSM Forum

Home  Login  Search 
Espanol  Deutsch  Francais  Italiano  Portugues 

An Animal Nature


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> An Animal Nature Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
An Animal Nature - 1/24/2009 2:07:15 PM   
Nyxmyst


Posts: 58
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:


ORIGINAL: MarcusofAr
And aren't the Codes the wall which separates men from blind beasts?


I was curious about this comment and instead of hyjacking the thread it appeared on I thought I would create a new one. There are two ways this comment could be taken. The first is that our codes seperate us from animals.
The more obvious is that Codes seperate people from animals. I'm not certain that's the case. If you look at the research on the Bonobo you'll find that they're much more similar to us than most people would be comfortable with. Sexually, they have everything from rape to prostitution and do not have sex just for breeding purposes. They also have, what appears to be, a complex set of social codes. When those codes are broken the individual is removed from the grouping and banished. Other mammals have, at times, shown similar actions.

While the social codes of other species might not be similar to ours in any way, they do seem to exist. At least, they exist in species with a high brain capacity. Dolphins also have some interesting social interactions and some people have always wondered if they might be fully sentient.

At the end of the day we are animals, after all. With all the base drives of animals. The fact that we have control over those instincts is not unique... just unusual. And, after all, not everyone does have control over their impulses.

The less obvious answer is that the Codes seperate Goreans from "lesser humans". Considering how often we're accused of hubris I'm leary of just assuming that this secondary idea was the aim of the statement. At least, I hope not.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/24/2009 3:05:57 PM   
MarcusofAr


Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline
Tal.

Of course, the comment of mine you quoted was based upon this one:

quote:

"What is it, Bran Loort, that separates men from sleen and larls?" asked Thurnus.
"I do not know," said Bran Loort. "It is the codes," said Thurnus.

--Slave Girl of Gor


It is quite true that Bonobos, like chimpanzees, have much in common with human beings. All three of those species share something like 98% genetic similarity. Hence the relevance of studying them from the sociobiological standpoint.

But I would think that in order for a set of behaviors to qualify as "codes," they must be "codified." Meaning they must be extracted and set down. Once they have been so set down, those to whom they apply would need to make a conscious choice whether or not to abide by them (if they had no such choice, then again we're dealing with instincts). So in that sense, the "social codes" to which you refer aren't social "codes" at all. They are behaviors.

Instincts determine the behaviors to which we are prone. The act of codifying them and determining which are correct in what situation, however, is a conscious choice, and seems to be the prerogative of a rational mind, capable of advanced thinking in the abstract.

Codes are law, and laws are a code.

While Bonobos and chimpanzees have displayed repetitive choice of action in response to particular stimuli, neither species has evinced significant behavior that suggests they have chosen or codified a formal set of laws among themselves. 

IWYW

_Marcus_


(in reply to Nyxmyst)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/24/2009 7:09:21 PM   
Crell


Posts: 62
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
It should be noted that "set down" should not imply "written". There have been human cultures, particularly in West Africa, where the cultural attitude was that something important should not be written down, because then it "dies". It should be remembered and repeated verbally and precisely, and people were trained in doing just that. That doesn't make their codes less valid, just transmitted differently.

However, Marcus' point remains. A pattern of behavior does not signify a code. Codes represent a conscious decision by a rational mind to behave in a certain way for moral/ethical reasons, not for instinctual ones. To quote another popular philosopher prone to long speeches, "Yes, we are killers, but we are not going to kill... today."

Codes separate Men from beasts because it takes a strong rational mind to be able to say "my biological instincts say X, but I say Y, because I believe Y to be Right". Yes, we are animals, but we are animals capable of making such statements. No other animal is, as far as we are aware.

(in reply to MarcusofAr)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/24/2009 7:33:16 PM   
MarcusofAr


Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline
Tal, Crell!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crell

It should be noted that "set down" should not imply "written".


Quite so. Though the term "codified" is sometimes presumed to imply writing or otherwise placing the information into a set format.

It also indicates "organized" and "prioritized."

Personally, I see the difference between "behavior" and "a code of behavior" thusly:

Let's say a group of villagers discover that their local mad scientist is building a monster in the castle on the hill. In response, they collectively decide to storm the castle with torches and pitchforks and end the threat.

That's "behavior."

Let us equally surmise that, after having done so, they all gather together and agree that if they ever run into that situation again, they will do the same thing.

That "behavior" will then have been added to their "code of behavior." It will have been decided beforehand, should the same circumstances occur again. It will then, either practically or literally, have been encoded into their body of law (codes).

The question of studying animal behaviors becomes one of whether or not they have all formally decided beforehand what they will do or not do, and can later refer to that group decision, versus simply doing or repeating whatever best suggests itself in response to the particular stimulus at hand.

In either case, whether or not pygmy chimpanzees keep to some kind of code isn't precisely the question being asked. Rather, it was an examination of my meaning when I asked the question "aren't the Codes the wall which separates men from blind beasts?"

My explanation is as follows: the fellow in the post to which I was responding paraphrased another idea, expressed in the Gor books as an attitude of the Kurii, that laws were metaphorical chains that enslaved those to whom they applied.

Playing Devil's Advocate, I answered by paraphrasing a different quote from the Gor books, in which it is stated that it is only the law (Codes) which separate human beings from species of lesser animals.

So, in making that statement, I was expressing the same concept as that expressed by Thurnus in Slave Girl of Gor.

I meant it the same way he meant it.

That's pretty straightforward, I think.

I wish you well!

_Marcus_



(in reply to Crell)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 2:04:25 AM   
Naturallurker


Posts: 117
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline
Cheers Marcus "that fellow" would be me, and to a great extent the point I was attempting to have considered by the group posting, was much as Crell discusses above, and much as the stoics, I think, touch on, that to blindly follow a set of rules a set of social or maritime codes, or even a set of codified moral thou shalt's and thou shalt nots is not enough.
That as humanbeings we will all face the same dilemas, although in varying guises, do we then as morally good, thinking Goreans follow only that which is codified, unthinkingly but obediently? Give into anything and everything that just feels good ? Or do we assess reason and face the eventuality that at some point we will have to make choices that while the consequences may be dire we make and only afterwards allow ourselves the time to grieve that there was no other way that was a better way? As I had previously intimated on page 2 of that thread

quote:

The man who is both strong and wise knows when to protect the weak and when to sacrifice the weak for a more enduring benefit of the whole. The courage to make leadership decisions that will leave blood on his hands and the humanity to mourn the deaths of those who consequently perished with out shirking either.


And lest anyone else be unsure that fellow is a fellowess

(in reply to MarcusofAr)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 7:41:05 AM   
MarcusofAr


Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline
Tal, Naturallurker!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naturallurker

Cheers Marcus "that fellow" would be me, and to a great extent the point I was attempting to have considered by the group posting, was much as Crell discusses above, and much as the stoics, I think, touch on, that to blindly follow a set of rules a set of social or maritime codes, or even a set of codified moral thou shalt's and thou shalt nots is not enough.


That's a very good point. And just as valid now as it was when you presented it in the original thread. But, then, my original response is also a valid one, yes? That to abandon our codes completely, or to allow them to waver, might be considered a step backward toward social chaos. 

BTW-- don't take it personally that I didn't go back to the thread itself to find the post in question, and specifically name you in this new thread. That was a long friggin' thread, my message box was already open and the reply begun, and I didn't figure the identity of the person to whom I wrote the quoted post was required, in order to explain why I said what I did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Naturallurker

And lest anyone else be unsure that fellow is a fellowess


The term "fellow" consistently appears in the Gor books as a general term for a male person. But I was unsure as to the sex of the individual to whom I was referring, hence I defaulted to the male pronoun. In the same manner as I would were I to say "one of those guys told me such-and-such," or the like.

"Offense by omission" of your identity was certainly not my intent.

IWYW

_Marcus_


< Message edited by MarcusofAr -- 1/25/2009 7:43:42 AM >

(in reply to Naturallurker)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 8:06:42 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
It is the need for codes that separates us from the blind beasts.  If a sociopath rises to a dominant position in a band of chimps, his influence will be limited owing mostly to the fact that he has no language with which to justify his actions through clever rhetoric, and he has no writing to extend his influence beyond a very limited number of individuals over which he can exert personal control.  Eventually his wacky actions will cost him enough allies and he'll get his ass kicked.

Humans aren't like that.  A corrupt but charismatic individual or movement of individuals can convince their fellow humans of all kinds of wacky shit through linguistic contrivance.  Worse yet, they can write that wacky shit down and influence men they've never met.  History is strewn with many instances of this.  Met any shakers lately?  Probably not.  They all died out a while back because they believed in celibacy.  They died and took their tendency to believe that wacky shit with them, as they should have, from a Gorean point of view.


< Message edited by Leonidas -- 1/25/2009 8:09:29 AM >


_____________________________

Take care of yourself

Leonidas

(in reply to Nyxmyst)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 8:21:15 AM   
Naturallurker


Posts: 117
Joined: 8/22/2008
Status: offline
Cheers Marcus,
I certainly didn't take  offence, it made me smile, and that takes a bit of doing at times. It also gave me the chance to reiterate.

 Your own point that to  "abandon codes" is indeed also valid. In the case of Bran Loort he illustrated, for me, a young man only applying awareness of the notion "I am a free man she is a slave I will have what I want by right" which is its self a form of social law or understanding (common accepted practice). To adjust actions in spite of existing codes is not something anyone should do lightly, just because it feels good, IMO.


 It is precisely because as intelligent Goreans, we need to see past that which is commonly accepted common social laws(norms), understand how adaptable even the strictest codes may have to be, when and why, and also understand when they are immutable, that I made the point.

It certainly was a long darn thread, lets knit it into something useful

I wish you well also

my apologies if this double posts my connection here seems to have a mind of its own.


(in reply to MarcusofAr)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 8:34:17 AM   
MarcusofAr


Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline
Tal, Leonidas!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

It is the need for codes that separates us from the blind beasts. 


Absolutely.

One hopes that one's codes are good ones, supported by biological fact and intended to meet the needs and supply the best results for all who agree to be bound by them.

But they need not be. Some such codes might be misguided, or patently manipulative, or just plain dumb.

As Naturallurker implies, one should pay close attention to such things rather than just blindly obeying whatever is placed in front of you. Those who refuse to think for themselves, enslave themselves.

But as Thurnus says in the Gor books, the Codes are also "the wall" which separates us from purely instinctual creatures. Because sometimes, just because "it feels good" DOESN'T mean we ought to do it automatically at every opportunity. Sometimes we should control our instincts and funnel them into the proper channels in order to achieve the best results for all concerned.

That's Gorean self-control in defense of beneficial social order, toward which the Codes are considered to be the greatest contributor.

Too, it's worth mentioning that codes vary from city to city and from caste to caste.

Regarding the Shakers, I happen to own an antique Shaker tea table. The Shakers were magnificent craftsmen and woodworkers.

"Were" being the active modifier in that sentence. 

I wish you well!

_Marcus_


(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 9:52:33 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcusofAr

But as Thurnus says in the Gor books, the Codes are also "the wall" which separates us from purely instinctual creatures. Because sometimes, just because "it feels good" DOESN'T mean we ought to do it automatically at every opportunity. Sometimes we should control our instincts and funnel them into the proper channels in order to achieve the best results for all concerned.



Tal Marcus!

Owing mostly to the fact that we are unique among the animals on this planet in our ability to radically shape our environment.  Our instincts, however, are in fact blind to our ability to do so.  This is why you see humans who barely fit into the seats of their cars ordering high-fat, high-calorie foods at a drive-through window.  Their desire for high-fat, high-calorie foods is completely blind to the fact that they are at a drive-through window.  That desire still believes that high-fat, high-calorie foods are hard to come by and should be consumed greedily when encountered.  When one considers this, the need for self-restraint in our codes becomes evident.

This is the essence of the quest for the truth of ourselves that is the Gorean way.  To finally arrive at a definition of right, good, and just that makes us whole again, rather than divided against ourselves.

It's hard to describe the disgust I feel sometimes when who we are gets reduced and portrayed by some as yet another version of chivalrous virtue, class distinction, or "lawyering" about what the "rules of Gor" are.  Who we are, and what we stand for is worthier than that.

I wish you well.

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 1/25/2009 9:58:00 AM >


_____________________________

Take care of yourself

Leonidas

(in reply to MarcusofAr)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 10:44:22 AM   
MarcusofAr


Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline
Tal, Leonidas!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

It's hard to describe the disgust I feel sometimes when who we are gets reduced and portrayed by some as yet another version of chivalrous virtue, class distinction, or "lawyering" about what the "rules of Gor" are.  Who we are, and what we stand for is worthier than that.


It is perhaps a truism that whenever one approaches any philosophical exploration of a potential possibility petitio principii, in order to achieve a predetermined end result, then one starts to lose objective ground.

Gorean society and culture is not the reason for Gorean Philosophy-- it is the end result of a philosophy that is intended to acknowledge natural evolutionary processes among human beings.

As Norman says:

"Culture decides what is 'truth,' but truth, unfortunately, is unaware of this. Cultures, mad and blind, can die upon the rocks of truth. Why can truth not be the foundation of culture, rather than its nemesis? Can one not build upon the stone cliffs of reality rather than dash one's head against them?"

--Explorers of Gor

It seems rather obvious that the color of salt from Kasra, along with a thousand other interesting details about the fictional planet of Gor, may not have all that much to say about the human condition. But that does not mean that many of the other details of Gorean culture don't enter into the philosophical equation.

If one's goal is simply to emulate Goreans, one must be cautious lest one miss out on the opportunity to become Gorean.

It's a fine distinction, but I think a valid one.

I wish you well!

_Marcus_

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 12:22:43 PM   
Nyxmyst


Posts: 58
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarcusofAr

Tal.

Of course, the comment of mine you quoted was based upon this one:

quote:

"What is it, Bran Loort, that separates men from sleen and larls?" asked Thurnus.
"I do not know," said Bran Loort. "It is the codes," said Thurnus.

--Slave Girl of Gor


It is quite true that Bonobos, like chimpanzees, have much in common with human beings. All three of those species share something like 98% genetic similarity. Hence the relevance of studying them from the sociobiological standpoint.

But I would think that in order for a set of behaviors to qualify as "codes," they must be "codified." Meaning they must be extracted and set down. Once they have been so set down, those to whom they apply would need to make a conscious choice whether or not to abide by them (if they had no such choice, then again we're dealing with instincts). So in that sense, the "social codes" to which you refer aren't social "codes" at all. They are behaviors.

Instincts determine the behaviors to which we are prone. The act of codifying them and determining which are correct in what situation, however, is a conscious choice, and seems to be the prerogative of a rational mind, capable of advanced thinking in the abstract.

Codes are law, and laws are a code.

While Bonobos and chimpanzees have displayed repetitive choice of action in response to particular stimuli, neither species has evinced significant behavior that suggests they have chosen or codified a formal set of laws among themselves. 

IWYW

_Marcus_




Good day,

I'll use another example from a species that is much farther removed from us. It has to do with ostracizing others from a group for a particular act.

Mark Becoff, an ethologist at the University of Colorado, had an interesting article done on him in Time Magazine in July of 2005. He believed that dogs, as well as other animals, showed a rudimentary morality and acted upon it. He noticed that dogs always used signals in their play. However, if they cheated and signaled falsely (such as signaling a playful bite and then delivering a harsh one) they would then be excluded from the group in the future.

Moral of the day - don't cheat. Granted, this is all done in a much more simplistic fashion than we do because their methods of communication are very different. He believes that many animals have morals and ethics and while they might be different from ours they are very much in evidence.

Now if you take it that our Codes come from our basic morality than the only real seperation is their inability to communicate it, at least with us. Since mammals tend to raise their young, often for several years, and education is part of that raising experience it is possible that basic morality is passed on. In fact, it's likely.

Goodall also discovered times where a member of a group would be ostracized for unusual behavior. And yes, this is likely a survival trait but we ostracize for similar reasons. The survival of the group, be in actual survival or more metaphorical, becomes more important than the individual.

Going back to our closest cousins, Chimpanzies do have methods of communication and language of their own. Certain signals, learned as youths, are used to impart knowledge.

In Primate Cognition by Michael Tomasello he explores the idea of complex social structures amoung primate species. It's a pretty fascinating read, actually. While many things are instinct he believes that the social aspects of primate life are not only instinct. That they have complex social codes that adapt and change based on the environment they find themselves within.

Granted, until we find a real common language there's no way of asking but it is possible that they are not quite the blind beasts that people believe they are. Are some animals? Surely. Are all? Not necessarily. It is possible that we are not the only fully sentient species nor the only complex one. In the end, our nifty thumbs might be the real seperation between the species.

(in reply to MarcusofAr)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/25/2009 1:17:17 PM   
MarcusofAr


Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline
Tal!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nyxmyst

Granted, until we find a real common language there's no way of asking but it is possible that they are not quite the blind beasts that people believe they are. Are some animals? Surely. Are all? Not necessarily.


That's extremely interesting. The material you reference certainly raises some valid questions. :)

But, as you yourself say, some animals are, surely, blind beasts.

And it seems to me that codes-- i.e. the cognitive ethical systems which serve to dictate "proper" behavior within a species-- are still the wall which separates higher animals from the blind beasts who have no such systems.

In which case, Thurnus (and by extension, Norman) was absolutely right.

IWYW,

_Marcus_

(in reply to Nyxmyst)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/26/2009 10:33:16 PM   
Crell


Posts: 62
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
Nyx, your post reminds me of one of the very first discussions I had way back on the World of Gor forums in 2001 or 2002, regarding the "Tit for Tat" game strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat) and how it related to the concept of honor. :-)

Which of course begs the question, are such animals developing a morality, or simply following a more complex set of instincts than we expect? And how much of human morality is actually just a very complex set of instincts? I suspect the answer varies widely depending on the species.

Perhaps the distinction between man and beast is the ability to reflect on instinct and make a conscious decision of when to break from it, and when not to. No other species as far as we are aware is sufficiently self-aware to ask such questions. Chimps, for instance, can learn new skills, but do not appear to ever bother to teach these skills to their children so that they can improve on them later.

Of course, we can hardly communicate with each other at times. We can't even begin to communicate with other species with whom we share 95% of our DNA. Perhaps they have their own codes after all and wonder the same questions about us. :-)

(in reply to MarcusofAr)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/27/2009 5:49:46 AM   
Sylverdawn


Posts: 1123
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

Met any shakers lately?  Probably not.  They all died out a while back because they believed in celibacy.  They died and took their tendency to believe that wacky shit with them, as they should have, from a Gorean point of view.


http://maineshakers.com/default.html

Not all dead yet ... a small but vibrant community I am told...


_____________________________

“When women are depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men invade another country. It's a whole different way of thinking.” Elyane Boosler

Being a women is hard work Maya Angelou

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/27/2009 6:01:53 AM   
OrionTheWolf


Posts: 7329
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline
~FR~

Do animals identify virtues they wish to attain, and then create a code to move towards those virtues? I can see why someone that does not have a code, or that does not believe in higher virtues would not believe that codes seperate us. I am sure this and other things will wind up in someone's blog somewhere, ridiculing the answers they were given to their queries.

Live well,
Orion

_____________________________

Die die glauben fordern keinen Beweis. Denen die zweifeln genuegt kein Beweis.


(in reply to Sylverdawn)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/27/2009 6:35:49 AM   
Angrylibrarian


Posts: 214
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, 562).

You don't have to stick to dogs and primates to discover the origin of ethics, and you definitely don't have to look to cognitive control. Morality is not a choice.

Stinging worker bees are willing to die to protect their hive, for what purpose?  The workers are sisters to the queen and they are protecting their allele. An allele that causes an organism to have sex more often may reliably be spread but so does an allele that helps its siblings reproduce.

Altruism, is advantageous at the group level. There's no conscious choice between dogs to send false signals or ostracize a member who does, its simply group level biology or what is better summed up in "Kin selection/ Inclusive fitness."

"Though an altruistic behavior which spreads by kin selection reduces the organism's personal fitness (by definition), it increases what Hamilton (1964) called the organism's inclusive fitness. An organism's inclusive fitness is defined as its personal fitness, plus the sum of its weighted effects on the fitness of every other organism in the population, the weights determined by the coefficient of relationship r."



(in reply to Nyxmyst)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/27/2009 8:08:53 AM   
amelliagrace


Posts: 1792
Joined: 8/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylverdawn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

Met any shakers lately?  Probably not.  They all died out a while back because they believed in celibacy.  They died and took their tendency to believe that wacky shit with them, as they should have, from a Gorean point of view.


http://maineshakers.com/default.html

Not all dead yet ... a small but vibrant community I am told...



Momentary derail:
SD -
They were down to two members of advanced years in the early 80's, if memory serves.  Certainly, several Shaker communties have died out (the most recent in 1992 or therabouts) becoming historical foot notes, memory, and museums.  There were roughly 6,000 Shakers at the peak of their population, and the only remaining active community in the United States has a mere 4 members now.  Not sure if there are others outside the US.
 
It still remains that their chosen way of life is not conducive to long term population maintenance, let alone steady growth trends, over time.  I'd also posit that the narrower Goreans choose to define themselves, and the more restrictive they are in acceptance of others into their small communities, the more they place themselves into the same situation.  The smaller the group, the more important becomes the question of, "Is holding fast to this group of behaviors, tenets, whatever, important enough to make possible extinction an acceptible alternative to changing?"  I suppose that each of us asks ourselves multiple times during our life, "Is this hill worth fighting for, and dying on?"  People have been finding things worth dying for since the dawn of man.  Too bad I won't be around in a hundred years or so to see how many Living Goreans are holding that particular hill, and how wide or narrow its identity base has become.
 
Just a thought -
Grace

(in reply to Sylverdawn)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/27/2009 3:04:32 PM   
MarcusofAr


Posts: 532
Joined: 3/12/2008
Status: offline
Tal, Angrylibrarian!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Angrylibrarian

“the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized” (Wilson 1975, 562).

You don't have to stick to dogs and primates to discover the origin of ethics, and you definitely don't have to look to cognitive control.


Absolutely true. And anyone who quotes from Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, in context, as you have done, scores big in my book. It's one helluva great book. Groundbreaking stuff, that.

Yet the question is, in relation to the OP, whether or not natural, unqualified ethics practiced as part of species cooperative behavior as a factor of survival instinct, are precisely the same thing as "the Codes" which Norman mentioned in the quote I paraphrased.

The factors you mention are undoubtedly the source of any such "code." But are they identical to the finished product? An extrapolated, codified set of moral truisms emplaced by a social group, to which all involved may refer to judge the theoretical "rightness" of their actions, either beforehand or after the fact?

Certain directives within such Codes, for instance, might even be counter-instinctual-- based upon an (external) belief that certain pressing biological survival behaviors might, in some instances, be incorrect. Or, as Norman suggests, they might equally mirror the natural biologically-based ethical structure.

But are they the same thing? Are ethics an "ethical code" if they have NOT been systematically organized into a "Code of Ethics"?

And do less cognitive animals understand, when they behave ethically, that they are doing so-- or do they simply do so, without recognizing or formally codifying the process at all?

I wish you well,

_Marcus_



 

(in reply to Angrylibrarian)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: An Animal Nature - 1/27/2009 3:21:29 PM   
Angrylibrarian


Posts: 214
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
Conjecture:
IF
Ethics and in some sense morality, is the rationalized human explanation of naturally occurring urges. Codification of ethical behaviors, is an extension of the rational mind to systematically predict (explain? comprehend?) observed behaviors. Because the human brain seeks to solve any case of cognitive dissonance it is given, codes provide a metric. 'I have followed the codes, therefore I am ethical". Causation is irrelevant. even when failure to follow the codes is not necessarily a conscious choice, our cognitive ability (and metric)  allows us to say "I have been unethical"

But at the same time, less cognitive animal do not understand when they behave ethically that they are doing so.  And because they lack cognition they can not codify those behavior. So mankind might be described as instinctively driven by biological altruism, and constantly weighing it against an often in flux rationalization?

Totally unexplored conjecture of course.



(in reply to MarcusofAr)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Gorean Lifestyles >> An Animal Nature Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2012
Collarchat.com is a member of the Free Speech Coalition
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.266