Glory

No. Loners have it harder than than their more social counterparts(within their own species) and increase the chances that they might die. Why do you assume it must be all or nothing?

Duh! The term social animal referrs to species that organise themselves into groups and cooperate in the ins and outs of survival. It does not have anything to do with mating. Eagles mate but are not social animals.

Glory

Glory

K,

I am relieved that you approve. I was a little nervous about it.

Glory

Amos

I agree 100% and would even add that the more social animals become the more intelligent they become. It simply is a matter of the division between their soul and their conscious mind wherein the soul is the gatherer and the conscious mind is the hunter (to put a new twist into the argument).

Of course it is in the bible and therefore has to be true.

Amos

Sure, eagles always get raped.

"Social animal" refers to species that organize themselves for survival but there are many animals that become social only for mating while others become social for mating and nurture and so on until others finally fit your cathegory of "social animal."

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by Amos:
Sure, eagles always get raped.

Well by not having a soul or free will then they are unable to consent so by definition all animals get raped!

"Social animal" refers to species that organize themselves for survival but there are many animals that become social only for mating while others become social for mating and nurture and so on until others finally fit your cathegory of "social animal."

"Social Animal" is a term that has absolutely nothing to do with mating practices, some Whales are social animals but after mating they will probably never meet their "mates" again, many birds mate for life but are the most unsocial animals on the planet!

Amen-Moses

Glory

Amos,

Now I think you are just being stubborn. "Social Animal" is a scientific term which describes creatures who naturally form social groups in which they live and go about their daily lives. It has nothing to do with mating practices or souls. If you can't except the meaning that we are attatching to the term, no reasonable or intelligible discourse is possible.



Socialization has led to several species surviving under circumstances in which they (the species) would not have survived had they not formed social groups. This does NOT mean that every loner will die. It means only, that the species would have died had most of them(the individuals) not formed social groups.

Clear?

Glory

99Percent

Yes, people are ends in themselves, individuals are ends in themselves, I agree but this contradicts the first part of the above quote which state that "individual passions and interests are a non-factor". In morality you have to assume that every individual has a life force driving him or her, and that is the achievement of happiness. That each individual has his/her idea of what happiness entails is that individual's interests and passion. This is where I think Kant got confused, because in pure reason he could accept that individual interests and passions are objectively morally valid. As emphasized by me in the following part of the quote:

Because Kant cannot accept rational self-interest as a morally valid, and even states it as contradictory - his whole moral theory falls apart.

pug846

K said:

If you aren’t taking about ought statements, then you aren’t talking about ethics, period. I never claimed you had to be referring to a “transcendent” ought. Call it what you will, but you aren’t discussing ethics – you are discussing descriptive psychology.

Again, I concede that your first sentence is obviously true, but if “we” call this “morals,” then “we” don’t know what we are talking about.

Starboy said:

If you are reading into my statements that you need an “absolute” source of morals, whatever the hell that might mean, then you are reading way too much into my comments. This is very simple: Ethics involve ought statements. They are not statements of fact, but statements prescribing human behavior. You are merely discussing how humans, as a matter of fact, generally act.

Societies with poorly structured social rules usually become extinct, but that has nothing to do with ethics, unless you add in a whole lot of arguing in there somewhere.

It’s very simple. Ethics involve ought statements. What I (or “we”) ought to be doing. This can be different than what we are doing. As a matter of fact, people generally cooperate. We can still ask ought we cooperate? Why should I care if my actions, i9f universalized by the rest of my culture, would cause the demise of my culture? You just aren’t making any sense here.

K

Pug:

Whoever said I was talking about ethics? I simply tried to provide an answer to the original poster's question. Is morality a given? And does it make sense for us to behave morally? I think my posts made an attempt to answer those questions and I never once mentions ethics or ought except in response to your objections.

Why do you say that we don't know what were talking about when we assign the name "morals" to a certain aspects of our behavior. Unless morality automatically refers to some objective standard, then it can simply be used as a description of a type of behavior.

If you bring an ought into the discussion, you ARE introducing an objective standard. There can be oughts for some goals (ie. survival of the species). But without the objective standard, there is no way to say whether that goal is worthwhile.

Kantian

There is no contradiction. I must point out how utterly false the Randian assumption that a life force must be interpolated as the achievement of happiness. Morality in the Kantian sense that depends on hypothetical imperatives is simply not rational morality but a Humean sort, one that is entirely contingent upon whatever sentiments, passions one holds.
Then you are merely re-introducing a hypothetical imperative, one that is contingent upon the individual’s understanding of happiness, and in turn, his passions, wishes, sentiments, not rationality.
Wrong. Kant wanted to rebut Hume’s skepticism in the moral realm, not reinforce it by justifying individual interests and passions as objectively morally valid. Via pure reason Kant wanted to achieve the categorical imperative (by ejecting all contingent hypothetical imperatives) a fundamental law that applied to all rational, autonomous beings.
FWIW, That was my personal criticism of Kant. You have not accomplished in demonstrating where the contradiction is, since you tried to covertly introducing a phony hypothetical imperative dressed up as an “objectively morally valid” concept. A categorical imperative ignores all contingencies, consequentialism or other purpose-guiding factors, any teleological assumptions you are masquerading as something “objectively morally valid.”

~Transcendentalist~