Where do moral laws come from?

[Boss]

I disagree. Once people stopped wandering and started settlements the tendency for xenophobic violence had to end because it was no longer possible to know every person in a settlement. It had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with expediency

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Outcomes. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure while successful behaviors naturally lead to success. There is a law of compensation at work that helps us tell the difference between doing good and rationalizing that we are doing good. Doing the right thing the right way for the right reason will naturally lead to positive outcomes.

But "outcomes" require something to have been tried first.

 

[ding]

If you are arguing that morality is subjective then by definition you are arguing for moral relativity. I can easily prove absolute morality by asking you a very simple question. Do you - not society, past, or future, believe it is wrong for humans to own other humans beings?

I am not asking you what society says about this. I am asking what you believe about this. Do you believe this would ever be moral?

Well I disagree that I believe in "moral relativism" as an absolute. I do not. I do believe there are certain things (though very few) that the overwhelming majority of humans agree upon morally regardless of culture or time. Often times, what this breaks down around is definitions.

You ask if I believe it is moral to own another human being. I do not. I wouldn't have believed that in 1861 and I don't believe most people would have. The difference is in definition of what a "human being" was... a slave was a piece of property, not a human being. Society justified the morality of owning slaves by distinguishing them as property and not human beings. The same thing happens today with regard to unborn fetuses.

We can look at the radical Islamic teachings... these people justify what they do as "moral" because they think it's justified to rid the planet of infidels and Jews. I hope you don't agree with them, I certainly don't agree with them, but they religiously believe they are being moral. They want to impose brutal Sharia Law on society, they think and religiously believe that is moral. We don't agree with them but that's the morality they've justified. Why hasn't your ethereal and universally eternal morality permeated their thoughts? Why don't they realize naturally that what they are doing is immoral?

Then you have just proven my point. You have discovered the moral law for this specific subject. That it is wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. It was always wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. And that it will always be wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. There is nothing relative about your belief.

So just because society's beliefs were relative on this subject, that did not negate the moral law on this subject. And since this was not always accepted as the moral law on this subject, it was eventually discovered to be the moral law on this subject, thus proving that the moral law is discovered... eventually.

Yes, I agree with you that we as a society have relegated the unborn to property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. I believe this is against the moral law of nature.

 

[ding]

I disagree. Once people stopped wandering and started settlements the tendency for xenophobic violence had to end because it was no longer possible to know every person in a settlement. It had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with expediency

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Outcomes. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure while successful behaviors naturally lead to success. There is a law of compensation at work that helps us tell the difference between doing good and rationalizing that we are doing good. Doing the right thing the right way for the right reason will naturally lead to positive outcomes.

But "outcomes" require something to have been tried first.

Sure. Truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process but eventually error will fail and truth will rise to the top.

 

[ding]

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

So is speeding or parking in a fire lane. EVERY law is rooted in a principle of morality at some level. It's virtually impossible to give me an example of a law that isn't.

Sure, but they all don't adhere to the moral law of nature.

Again... and I hate to sound like some sort of pervert... but a female reaches natural sexual maturity at around age 13~14 years. Yet we establish "age of consent" laws much higher and it's based on a morality judgement. Are we contradicting NATURAL morality?

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

 

[BreezeWood]

I disagree. Once people stopped wandering and started settlements the tendency for xenophobic violence had to end because it was no longer possible to know every person in a settlement. It had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with expediency

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

that simply is not true, all beings have the same sense as good and evil.

because the preponderance of evil in Garden Earth is humanity is not a special knowledge but an unwelcome and overused frailty.

 

[ding]

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

that simply is not true, all beings have the same sense as good and evil.

because the preponderance of evil in Garden Earth is humanity is not a special knowledge but an unwelcome and overused frailty.

Saying it is so does not make it so.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you are arguing that morality is subjective then by definition you are arguing for moral relativity. I can easily prove absolute morality by asking you a very simple question. Do you - not society, past, or future, believe it is wrong for humans to own other humans beings?

I am not asking you what society says about this. I am asking what you believe about this. Do you believe this would ever be moral?

Well I disagree that I believe in "moral relativism" as an absolute. I do not. I do believe there are certain things (though very few) that the overwhelming majority of humans agree upon morally regardless of culture or time. Often times, what this breaks down around is definitions.

You ask if I believe it is moral to own another human being. I do not. I wouldn't have believed that in 1861 and I don't believe most people would have. The difference is in definition of what a "human being" was... a slave was a piece of property, not a human being. Society justified the morality of owning slaves by distinguishing them as property and not human beings. The same thing happens today with regard to unborn fetuses.

We can look at the radical Islamic teachings... these people justify what they do as "moral" because they think it's justified to rid the planet of infidels and Jews. I hope you don't agree with them, I certainly don't agree with them, but they religiously believe they are being moral. They want to impose brutal Sharia Law on society, they think and religiously believe that is moral. We don't agree with them but that's the morality they've justified. Why hasn't your ethereal and universally eternal morality permeated their thoughts? Why don't they realize naturally that what they are doing is immoral?

Then you have just proven my point. You have discovered the moral law for this specific subject. That it is wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. It was always wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. And that it will always be wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. There is nothing relative about your belief.

So just because society's beliefs were relative on this subject, that did not negate the moral law on this subject. And since this was not always accepted as the moral law on this subject, it was eventually discovered to be the moral law on this subject, thus proving that the moral law is discovered... eventually.

Yes, I agree with you that we as a society have relegated the unborn to property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. I believe this is against the moral law of nature.

.

Yes, I agree with you that we as a society have relegated the unborn to property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. I believe this is against the moral law of nature.

.

that is not true, humans are no different than any other spices who's law of Nature is not their own and has never been ... the equivocation of christianity is well documented within their 4th century book. slavery being only one of many.

 

[BreezeWood]

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

that simply is not true, all beings have the same sense as good and evil.

because the preponderance of evil in Garden Earth is humanity is not a special knowledge but an unwelcome and overused frailty.

Saying it is so does not make it so.

.

Saying it is so does not make it so.

you obviously have no moral bearings.

 

[Boss]

If you are arguing that morality is subjective then by definition you are arguing for moral relativity. I can easily prove absolute morality by asking you a very simple question. Do you - not society, past, or future, believe it is wrong for humans to own other humans beings?

I am not asking you what society says about this. I am asking what you believe about this. Do you believe this would ever be moral?

Well I disagree that I believe in "moral relativism" as an absolute. I do not. I do believe there are certain things (though very few) that the overwhelming majority of humans agree upon morally regardless of culture or time. Often times, what this breaks down around is definitions.

You ask if I believe it is moral to own another human being. I do not. I wouldn't have believed that in 1861 and I don't believe most people would have. The difference is in definition of what a "human being" was... a slave was a piece of property, not a human being. Society justified the morality of owning slaves by distinguishing them as property and not human beings. The same thing happens today with regard to unborn fetuses.

We can look at the radical Islamic teachings... these people justify what they do as "moral" because they think it's justified to rid the planet of infidels and Jews. I hope you don't agree with them, I certainly don't agree with them, but they religiously believe they are being moral. They want to impose brutal Sharia Law on society, they think and religiously believe that is moral. We don't agree with them but that's the morality they've justified. Why hasn't your ethereal and universally eternal morality permeated their thoughts? Why don't they realize naturally that what they are doing is immoral?

Then you have just proven my point. You have discovered the moral law for this specific subject. That it is wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. It was always wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. And that it will always be wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. There is nothing relative about your belief.

So just because society's beliefs were relative on this subject, that did not negate the moral law on this subject. And since this was not always accepted as the moral law on this subject, it was eventually discovered to be the moral law on this subject, thus proving that the moral law is discovered... eventually.

Yes, I agree with you that we as a society have relegated the unborn to property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. I believe this is against the moral law of nature.

Well I don't see where I proved anything other than your OP premise as being incorrect and invalid. While OUR society recognizes slavery is immoral and wrong, it STILL exists in other societies. So there isn't a universal understanding even on something as apparent as this. Justifications are still made for immoral behavior and they always will be... that's the inclination of man.

Again, let's take homosexuality as an example. In ancient Greece, homosexuality prevailed as a moral right of passage. It was considered part of the culture and absolutely moral. Flash-forward to Puritanical western society where homosexuality was viewed as morally reprehensible and shunned for years. Only recently have we relaxed our laws and made homosexuality legal and now, in fact, a recognized protected class. What IS the TRUE "natural morality" on that?

Same with 14-year-old girls getting married... How do we KNOW we're at the "naturally moral" position? If there is supposed to be some natural moral truth to this, we should be aware of it, right? Now you can say... Well "Age 16" is the natural moral right and any time prior to that is morally wrong... that's a subjective opinion based on nothing other than your abstract moral values. It's not rooted in nature because nature shows NO indication of bestowing ability of consent on any given day and time. This ability depends largely on the maturity of the individual.

What you are attempting to do here is establish some universal morality that is true and which you want everyone to accept. But you don't get to decide that for everyone. We may differ greatly on what we consider "moral" or "immoral" depending on our perspective. I don't consider it "moral" to lock people up and steal their property because they planted a weed in their backyard. Others disagree with me and think it's upholding a moral standard to do so. There is no "natural moral truth" there, it's subjective and depends on individual perspective.

 

[Boss]

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

Again, I told you that you would come back at me with this very argument! You are making a subjective moral decision based on your perception. It's not some universal truth the whole of mankind accepts. You may WISH it were, but it's simply NOT. That's the crux of the debate here.

You say it yourself... "[YOU] don't consider it to be the highest possible standard of conduct!" That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR perspective and perceptions... not a universal TRUTH. You are simply attempting to "ordain" your moralistic beliefs as some kind of universal truth as if something endowed you with this ability. I assure you, it did not. You speak for YOURSELF... as do I, as does every individual.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Humans did the same thing, they called them "tribes".

Have you ever seen a dog civilization?

civilization has more to do with intelligence than spirituality

 

[Boss]

civilization has more to do with intelligence than spirituality

I disagree. I think our spirituality has much to do with our intelligence.

 

[ding]

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

Again, I told you that you would come back at me with this very argument! You are making a subjective moral decision based on your perception. It's not some universal truth the whole of mankind accepts. You may WISH it were, but it's simply NOT. That's the crux of the debate here.

You say it yourself... "[YOU] don't consider it to be the highest possible standard of conduct!" That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR perspective and perceptions... not a universal TRUTH. You are simply attempting to "ordain" your moralistic beliefs as some kind of universal truth as if something endowed you with this ability. I assure you, it did not. You speak for YOURSELF... as do I, as does every individual.

The universal standard is not taking advantage of others for personal gain.

 

[ding]

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

that simply is not true, all beings have the same sense as good and evil.

because the preponderance of evil in Garden Earth is humanity is not a special knowledge but an unwelcome and overused frailty.

Saying it is so does not make it so.

.

Saying it is so does not make it so.

you obviously have no moral bearings.

If it gives you comfort, I am more than happy for you to see me that way.

 

[ding]

If you are arguing that morality is subjective then by definition you are arguing for moral relativity. I can easily prove absolute morality by asking you a very simple question. Do you - not society, past, or future, believe it is wrong for humans to own other humans beings?

I am not asking you what society says about this. I am asking what you believe about this. Do you believe this would ever be moral?

Well I disagree that I believe in "moral relativism" as an absolute. I do not. I do believe there are certain things (though very few) that the overwhelming majority of humans agree upon morally regardless of culture or time. Often times, what this breaks down around is definitions.

You ask if I believe it is moral to own another human being. I do not. I wouldn't have believed that in 1861 and I don't believe most people would have. The difference is in definition of what a "human being" was... a slave was a piece of property, not a human being. Society justified the morality of owning slaves by distinguishing them as property and not human beings. The same thing happens today with regard to unborn fetuses.

We can look at the radical Islamic teachings... these people justify what they do as "moral" because they think it's justified to rid the planet of infidels and Jews. I hope you don't agree with them, I certainly don't agree with them, but they religiously believe they are being moral. They want to impose brutal Sharia Law on society, they think and religiously believe that is moral. We don't agree with them but that's the morality they've justified. Why hasn't your ethereal and universally eternal morality permeated their thoughts? Why don't they realize naturally that what they are doing is immoral?

Then you have just proven my point. You have discovered the moral law for this specific subject. That it is wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. It was always wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. And that it will always be wrong to treat human beings as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. There is nothing relative about your belief.

So just because society's beliefs were relative on this subject, that did not negate the moral law on this subject. And since this was not always accepted as the moral law on this subject, it was eventually discovered to be the moral law on this subject, thus proving that the moral law is discovered... eventually.

Yes, I agree with you that we as a society have relegated the unborn to property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. I believe this is against the moral law of nature.

Well I don't see where I proved anything other than your OP premise as being incorrect and invalid. While OUR society recognizes slavery is immoral and wrong, it STILL exists in other societies. So there isn't a universal understanding even on something as apparent as this. Justifications are still made for immoral behavior and they always will be... that's the inclination of man.

Again, let's take homosexuality as an example. In ancient Greece, homosexuality prevailed as a moral right of passage. It was considered part of the culture and absolutely moral. Flash-forward to Puritanical western society where homosexuality was viewed as morally reprehensible and shunned for years. Only recently have we relaxed our laws and made homosexuality legal and now, in fact, a recognized protected class. What IS the TRUE "natural morality" on that?

Same with 14-year-old girls getting married... How do we KNOW we're at the "naturally moral" position? If there is supposed to be some natural moral truth to this, we should be aware of it, right? Now you can say... Well "Age 16" is the natural moral right and any time prior to that is morally wrong... that's a subjective opinion based on nothing other than your abstract moral values. It's not rooted in nature because nature shows NO indication of bestowing ability of consent on any given day and time. This ability depends largely on the maturity of the individual.

What you are attempting to do here is establish some universal morality that is true and which you want everyone to accept. But you don't get to decide that for everyone. We may differ greatly on what we consider "moral" or "immoral" depending on our perspective. I don't consider it "moral" to lock people up and steal their property because they planted a weed in their backyard. Others disagree with me and think it's upholding a moral standard to do so. There is no "natural moral truth" there, it's subjective and depends on individual perspective.

It doesn't matter if slavery exists in other cultures. That is like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder because murders still exist. The standard is not negated just because people don't adhere to the standard. The standard exists independently of our actions.

 

[rightwinger]

You can not legislate morality!

Of course you can

Murder is not moral. We have laws against it
Stealing the property of others is not moral......We have laws against it
Assault and rape is not moral...We have laws against it

I agree, but that still does not make the people behave morally. I believe that is what he meant by you can't legislate morality. And you can't. The best you can do is write laws and punish people for breaking those laws. But that won't make them moral. They have to choose to do that. Conversely, you could write bad laws and people could choose to violate them because they are moral.

Society determines how its members must interact. Those who defy the dictates of society receive a punishment deemed appropriate. Those deemed by society to not be moral are separated by society.

 

[rightwinger]

I disagree. Once people stopped wandering and started settlements the tendency for xenophobic violence had to end because it was no longer possible to know every person in a settlement. It had nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with expediency

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

I've had dogs my whole life

Yes, they do understand that some other dogs (or people) are good or evil

 

[Mudda]

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

Again, I told you that you would come back at me with this very argument! You are making a subjective moral decision based on your perception. It's not some universal truth the whole of mankind accepts. You may WISH it were, but it's simply NOT. That's the crux of the debate here.

You say it yourself... "[YOU] don't consider it to be the highest possible standard of conduct!" That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR perspective and perceptions... not a universal TRUTH. You are simply attempting to "ordain" your moralistic beliefs as some kind of universal truth as if something endowed you with this ability. I assure you, it did not. You speak for YOURSELF... as do I, as does every individual.

The universal standard is not taking advantage of others for personal gain.

Nature is all about taking advantage of the weak for personal gain. Please try again.

 

[Mudda]

There weren't any settlements. There were only tribes. The tribes were mostly family. You're jumping way ahead to a settlement... that's post-civilization. There is no evidence of any civilization existing without spirituality.

Now, neither of us knows for certain, the answer is elusive. But it's my theory that human spirituality must've preceded civilization or we would've found remnants of ancient civilizations devoid of spiritualism. And I can conjecture how this spiritual connection was something early man could use in forming trust relationships with others. Tribes suddenly grew into civilizations.

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

I've had dogs my whole life

Yes, they do understand that some other dogs (or people) are good or evil

They are either afraid of them or not, it's a survival instinct because in the wild, a small injury can mean death. It has nothing to do with morally good or evil.

 

[rightwinger]

I said once people stopped wandering and started settlements

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that

before that xenophobic violence was the norm

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

I've had dogs my whole life

Yes, they do understand that some other dogs (or people) are good or evil

They are either afraid of them or not, it's a survival instinct because in the wild, a small injury can mean death. It has nothing to do with morally good or evil.

My dogs have some people or dogs that they like, some that they are indifferent to or some that they despise. They are able to sense who they are friends with and who they should consider a threat.