Two faced "morality"

Post Reply New Topic

I seem to notice a moral dichotomy when it comes to taking examples from nature as being normative. On one hand homosexuality and sexual licentiousness sometimes use examples from the realm of animal behavior to claim that such behavior is natural and therefore is acceptable. However, in regards to violence more people would wish to ignore the realm of animal behavior in regard to morality. Animals kill each other, intentionally, and such is "only natural" and therefore acceptable, right or wrong? Or is it just a big game of pick and choose anyway?

You raise a worthwhile point for consideration. I doubt animals find various sexual practices objectionable but who knows what goes on in the minds of animals in this area? Humans seem to be rather sensitive to sex in all sorts of ways that animals in general seem not.to be.

Although predatory animals do kill for food and in sexual competition there are only rare species that indulge in the kind of mass indiscriminate killing the way humans regularly do. Bacteria and viruses do that on occasion when populations are vulnerable but I doubt you can use that as an example of morality.

It's not a simple problem.

Humans technically are animals, and as such they often display the same behavior that other animals do. Humans have the capacity to kill each other indiscriminately too. The only difference is humans have established societal norms in which killing people is unacceptable.

As for sexual morality, as far as I'm concerned, as long as everybody involved was of legal age and there was mutual consent between them and nobody obtains an injury, then there's no problem with what they're doing.

Almost every human culture has also established social norms in which homosexual behavior is unacceptable, so you just did the same thing Keet criticized in the OP (pick and choose).


I have more or less the same view.

It's a game of pick and choose. I mean, people also like eating all natural food. I think Marquis de Sade's natural law sufficiently makes a mockery of most natural law concepts enough to get rid of a use of the pure natural law.

well I have been trying to figure out what provokes genocide. I have not seen such behavior in any animals that I know of. I think the best way to explain it is the way my friend does (on the subject of genocide), "I am a kinda person who stays on the sidelines and watches and records what happens, and I notice that humans divide themselves into smaller and smaller groups...I wish that I knew how to stop this process." Of course it may be a form of eleminating what they believe is the weakest link to rid them of the gene pool. But most genocide I have seen has been a result of shortage, battles over land, food, water but then there is the killing that happens out intolerant hatred. I guess the difference that science has pointed out is that animals dont have emotions the same way people do. Most pack animals show what seems to be emotion is really domince/ submission and maternal/paternal instints. and mating behaviors. Not much happens in pack mentality of animals beyond that.

So I think that we are emotional/logical animals which is why there is a disconnect when we compare ourselves to animals...because we share some animal traits, but not others. But all pack animals have a pecking order which the leader determines the rules (if they dont...it would not be a very functional pack) In Humans, morality helps keep the human pack functional (but when morality gets messed up, the pack gets messed up)

But to answer your question, we are talking about apples and oranges here...sex is an instint that animals and humans share, but indiscrimate killing for emotional/logical reasons is purely human and has no relation with other animals...however killing for territory, food, water, hunting, protection of young, mating battles,and elemnating the weak and sick from the gene pool has a natrual correlation, with other animals and applying your logic...probably in those cases is a double standard.

they only use the example of the animal behaviour because anti-homosexuals say its unnatural.
(something which doesnt occur in nature)

there is nothing wrong with any sexual orientation, the only time it becomes an issue of morality is when one party is below the age of consent.

even the bible has to stretch to find something wrong with homosexuality (if i remember rightly even jesus was silent on the issue-plus i dont think the bible is a good source for morals.)

i doubt anyone would look to the animal kingdom for morals. they merely look to it for correlative behaviours. (since we did evolve from similar intelligence levels)

If you refer to genocide, yes that is a form of "mass indiscriminate killing", but if a person were to kill for food, such as to go around hunting neighbors and eating them, would that be a problem? How about killing a neighbor's spouse and children so as to obtain a new mate?

Then again, as with the post from irishaspie, there have been more formal reasons developed to pick and choose, in regard to homosexuality. Sexuality in general however,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWY-9MCqaLQ[/youtube]

Unfortunately I cannot view the video behind the work firewall currently, but to me, a lot of what I see has been said. IE, Animals kill for mates, food, territory, water, sick/weak. Humans in what are known as desperate situations do this (ie, third world countries with famine, lawlessness, disease) but humans in what are accepted norm tend to kill for ideas. Racial/religious superiority, political ideation, money (a resource that has no natural parallel) or because they were told too (soldiers).

Sexuality is another war of ideation. Unnatural sexuality is a human ideal, and one the rest of the natural world is probably laughing at us about. We've killed over it before and probably will continue to for some time. It's part of the same problem to me. Humans might biologically be animals. But in some ways they're a lot less developed, or more depending on if you view killing for idea's as being more evolved/developed than only killing for survival or procreation.

I'm not picking and choosing, I'm merely stating that social norms have made killing others unlawful.

That is not really true, unless you are specifically refering to the emotion/logic of our superior cognition. Many animals appear to enjoy killing, or at least take it beyond the necessary, just as humans do. Chimpanzees, for example, to whom we are closely related. Also, foxes will kill indiscriminately as well as otters. There are no doubt many other examples.

I agree. This is a point I've never seen or heard, brought up before. I guess I feel one does not harm others, while one does. I think it is our job to try and rise above such primitive instincts, and evolve as a species.

I don't know, the Ancient Greeks didn't seem to mind. As far as I can tell the Romans too.

Regarding homosexuality- I believe that it is due to wrong wiring of the brain. Say the normal male brain finds the female figure attractive (the classic "hourglass" shape, larger hips than waist), while size is a cultural matter (thin or plump, etc). The normal female brain is a bit more complex but is something like a fit, strong and taller male is more attractive, while displays of wealth or power are also attractive.*

I just think that for some reason some men get the "male is attractive" wiring and so find men attractive, and vice versa for some women.

In that regard it is "natural" as if my hypothesis is correct this happens to animals too and thus homosexuality also exists in nature. Of course in evolution it is a dead end. In regards to right and wrong well if your brain keeps telling you that a certain sex is attractive there is little to be done about it.


Morality is a loose code of enforced behaviour that is not natural. That is why so few people are morally stoic. I guess that is also why a lot of Aspie's are morally good people, its an easy to understand set of rules for behaviour . Most people use them as they see fit, a lie to get out of trouble or avoid extra work lets them do other things. Lying in court could reduce a sentence. Its just our animal self preservation kicking in. We can just do it more abstractly than other animals.


*Back to my comment before- a wealthy or powerful man is more able to look after children, which in evolutionary terms is good. Think how children of wealthy people tend to get better schooling, medical, food, better environment. Often get born into a position of leadership over others. Its amazing how much our behaviour is ruled by instinct

It's not entirely correct to say that animals don't have morality. Chimpanzees have been shown to have altruistic tendencies for instance. And you should specify what animals you're talking about because different species have different behaviors. So even if humans are animals and some animals do certain things, it doesn't mean that we have to do those things. Nonetheless, I'm confused about why homosexuality should be considered wrong.

Bad example. Would you consider slaughtering and eating cows "hunting neighbors and eating them"? If you are referring to a lion hunting a buck or an impala for food then that's all it is. Hunting and eating members of one's own species however, is cannibalism and is relatively rare in nature.



Like a male lion would kill the previous dominant male lion and any cubs he produced when taking over a pride? We are not pack animals nor do live in prides like lions. It has happened in humans that someone would kill a spouse of a former lover out of jealousy but that does not mean it should be acceptable. In terms of evolution, we likely would of evolved rules of ethical behavior in the form of altruism as well reaping the benefits of breaking them.



Why should homosexuality be considered immoral? As long as two consenting adults are involved, no one gets hurt by it.

Chimpanzees do that kind of stuff, Bonobos do not.

ruveyn