alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>> Actually, it is arguable that he wasn't "thinking" at all. He was
>> reacting. Much as an animal does. That his behavior differed from
>> that of a typical animal just means that his programming was
>> different. But as you say, he also acted different from everyone else
>> on the bank.
>
>Altruism ... acting against his and all on the bank self-interest.

Altruism exists in animals.

>>>Its not what it results from, its that it happens.
>>
>> The point is that animals may feel "ought" as well.
>
>Animals, IMO act on instinct more than morality.

The question is whether there is a difference.

>If that was a cat in the Potomac I don't think other cats would have jumped in to save it.

They have different instincts.

>>>They were rescue men/women all along the bank of the Potomac River and a
>>>helicopter above ... they all reasoned that it wasn't a good idea to jump
>>>into the river and save the stewardess ... One man reasoned that she may
>>>die
>>>if someone doesn't do something immediately
>>
>> How do you know that he "reasoned"?
>
>I don't, I just know he took action.

Therefore, he may have acted on instinct. The fact that most others
did not react the same way, indeed makes it likely that he acted on
instinct.

>>>Because we should do what is right rather than whaat is wrong.
>>
>> What is "right" is defined by what the standard says. What your
>> standard says is "right" is almost certainly different from what mine
>> says, and both of ours are quite different from what a typical Hindu
>> believes is "right".
>
>I think our thoughs of what is right are similar.

They aren't.

>> Hitler probably though he was doing "right" too. We just think that
>> his standard of right was wrong.
>
>If so, he must have wondered why so many people thought he was wrong.

Why do you think he knew many people though he was wrong? Do you
think many people had the guts to tell him that he was wrong, knowing
that it would be suicidal to do so?

>> There will always be people who challenge laws too. But laws don't
>> exist to reinforce standards. They exist to declare societal
>> standards.
>
>Generally don't you believe laws reflect morality at least in the US.

They define morality, as far as some people are concerned.

>>>> Teenagers are noted for challenging standards; it is probably
>>>> instinctual that they do so, and its a VERY strong instinct. That
>>>> doesn't make them inherently immoral.
>>>
>>>Of course it doesn't, but they must be disciplined
>>
>> They will challenge even if they are disciplined.
>
>That is why parents are so important ... to face down the challeges.

Have you been a parent? Kids are intelligent. By the time they are
teenagers, they can think of a dozen ways to get around any
restriction their parent puts on them. They then decide if it is
worth it if they get caught (if they think they will get caught - some
kids cannot imagine that their parents could catch them. In many
cases they are correct)

>>>... the more immoral a society becomes the less free it becomes because of
>>>the restrictions/laws
>>>put on it.
>>
>> Nonsense. An immoral society wouldn't bother to put restrictions/laws
>> against immoral behavior.
>
>Lots of people would disagree with you ... abortion issue ... after 30+
>years it hasn't been settled.

Of course it has. The right wing just hasn't accepted that it has
lost. It has.

>IMO, the issue would have been settled years
>ago, if the decision would have been left to the State govts.

Not hardly.

>>>> The morals ARE part of the laws/standards.
>>>
>>>They may be part of them, but a lack of morals means more laws.
>>
>> No. Anarchy is the ultimate in an amoral society.
>
>It takes more laws in an immoral society

Nope.

>> In "real life" situations come up where "rights" come into conflict.
>> Most laws exist to rationally resolve those situations by thinking
>> them, out in advance, rather than ad hoc.
>>
>>>... if that were the case eventually society may become so complex that
>>>there will be
>>>nothing but immorality, complete oppression by laws.
>>
>> Complexity is not immorality, and laws are not immorality.
>
>Laws can be immoral.

Only for those who refuse to accept that they define morality.

>>>> "Laws" are mostly an agreement
>>>> by society to work out in advance how to deal with complex ambiguous
>>>> cases of conflict between the instinctive behaviors of individuals.
>>>
>>>Shouldn't that be done in the family?
>>
>> No. This isn't the Mafia. Families don't make laws. And they have
>> minimal power to enforce any decisions that are made, because at most
>> they control only that which belongs to the family.
>
>The family is where people begin to be socialized and obey restrictions.

It is also where they learn to evade restrictions.

>> Even if it wanted to, "the family" cannot by itself resolve a conflict
>> between what is "right" for the family, and what is "right" for some
>> other family.
>
>I wasn't talking about between different families.

Guess what. Most of adult morality issues are not confined within a
family.

>>>> Hindu or Buddhist moral beliefs are not the same as Christian moral
>>>> beliefs. Nor are Jewish moral beliefs the same.
>>>
>>>Like what ... they all believe murder is wrong,
>>
>> For one thing, they may define "murder" differently.
>
>Murder is murder is murder.

Did the US murder thousands of Iraqis?

Did the colonists murder most native Americans?

>>>From
>>>what I know, which isn't much, about major religions is that they all
>>>agree
>>>with most of the commandments, maybe not in that form.
>>
>> The Jews have over 600, and your 10 are no more nor less important
>> than the other 600.
>
>Well, the NT let us bail on some of the dietary laws. ;)

That is your personal belief.

I read "not one jot or tiddle" and recognize that Jesus said
otherwise.

>> There are a couple of the ten which all the religious AND
>> NON-RELIGIOUS agree on, which means that they have nothing to do with
>> religion. Of course they may define what falls within the bounds of
>> the standard differently. A Pacifist Quaker understands "thou shalt
>> not kill" differently from most other Christians.
>
>If they agree on the few they must have something to do with religion.

No. Because atheists also agree with them.

>> Did we murder thousands of people in Iraq?
>
>No. Where misconduct (murder) was found out people were held accountable.

I'm talking about the thousands of people killed by our bombs and
missiles?

Of course, by what right did we kill a single Iraqi?

War is murder.

God said "thou shalt not kill", but he commanded Israelites to kill.

lojbab