Final-Fan said:
Slimebeast said:
Final-Fan said:
@ Slimebeast:
"Your examples of social communities (like apes) that work well together for the best of their survival though social interactions, have their behaviour and rules based purely on instincts.
"But the rules and behaviour in human societies are not only based on instincts. They are also based on morals, which requires intellectual thinking and decisions and is something entirely different than genetically programmed instincts."
I would argue that you are massively underestimating the intelligence of apes to say that they are governed completely by instincts utterly beyond their control, rather than behaving according to social norms which are malleable by individual learning. |
That remains to be proven whether apes have morals or not. They're possibly a very unique exception. But that's beside the point. The point was to address his huge misunderstanding of morals by ignoring the requirement of intellect.
But wait, individual learning of proper behaviour (social norms) is still not enough to fullfill the definition of morals. It could be just mental programming without any reason involved which is actually pretty basic and mechanical for animals. Obviously higher order species like rats and wolves individually learn a certain set of behavioural rules on top of their pure instincts, but that doesn't mean they have morals.
|
But ... no. If apes have morals, I deny that other animals cannot have morals and defy you to show otherwise.
And how exactly would those learned social norms differ from morals?
|
Imprinted social norms are not based on a reasoned sense of right and wrong.
