How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

[Kenny]

Ken, thanks for the clarification.
So then, you would say that we do transcend nature...
in particular, that morality is something that goes beyond nature?

Please explain what you mean by transcending/going beyond nature.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Transcending/going beyond nature, I don't see is possible if we're a product of nature.

You mentioned rape previously. Well, nature doesn't care that you rape a girl any more than say wild ducks do to their own kind?
Why in your answer did you say it's not wrong for lions to kill of another species, but it is us -- that morality only applies to humans.

Or what about male aggression towards females:

Male aggression against females is frequently mentioned in passing or briefly described in the literature on wild nonhuman primates, which suggests its widespread occurrence through the Primate order (Tracy and Crawford, 1992). However, few quantitative data are available on male aggression against female nonhuman primates. Smuts (1985) determined rates of male aggression toward anestrous (i.e., pregnant and lactating) females in a troop of wild olive baboons. During daylight hours, the average anestrous adult female was a victim of male aggression five times per week. One-quarter of these episodes involved physical attack, and MALE AGGRESSION AND SEXUAL COERCION roughly 1 of every 50 attacks resulted in a serious wound. Put another way, each adult pregnant or lactating female baboon in the troop could expect to receive at least one serious wound from a male every year (Smuts, 1985).

Read more at: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.t ... ressed.pdf

Consider what Barbara Smuts, a longtime observer of social relations in primates like hamadryas baboons, chimpanzees and orangutans describes, in an 1995 article of Discover magazine re: masculine coercion of the female:

…Sometimes, as I saw in Gombe (a wildlife reserve in Tanzania), a male chimpanzee even attacks an estrous female days before he tries to mate with her. Goodall (Jane, a pioneering ethologist) thinks that a male uses such aggression to train a female to fear him so that she will be more likely to surrender to his subsequent sexual advances. Similarly, male hamadryas baboons, who form small harems by kidnapping child brides, maintain a tight rein over their females through threats and intimidation. If, when another male is nearby, a hamadryas female strays even a few feet from her mate, he shoots her a threatening stare and raises his brows. She usually responds by rushing to his side; if not, he bites the back of her neck. The neck bite is ritualized—the male does not actually sink his razor-sharp canines into her flesh—but the threat of injury is clear. By repeating this behaviour hundreds of times, the male lays claim to particular females months or even years before mating with them. When a female comes into estrus, she solicits sex only from her harem master, and other males rarely challenge his sexual rights to her.

Read more at: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/jkywrmQ ... ource=copy

Are the individual male primates who do this morally wrong? Why or why not?
I don't believe they're wrong. They're just acting out thanks who they are as nature developed them to be.
Just like each of us. Right?

[Kenny]

Transcending/going beyond nature, I don't see is possible if we're a product of nature.

What does this mean? Does it mean to be influenced but not totally controlled by nature? Does it mean nature has no affect on you? Or something in between? What exactly did you mean when you asked if humans transcend nature?

You mentioned rape previously. Well, nature doesn't care that you rape a girl any more than say wild ducks do to their own kind?

Humans (as well as lions) are not totally controlled by nature.

Why in your answer did you say it's not wrong for lions to kill of another species, but it is us

Even though wild animals do have a morality they live by; especially herding animals, Human morality only applies to humans. If lions kill off another species to extinction, humans will probably intervene and prevent it from happening because humans decided it is in our best interest to prevent it from happening. It isn’t a moral issue, but more of something that serves mankind.

Or what about male aggression towards females:
Are the individual male primates who do this morally wrong? Why or why not?

It isn’t a human moral issue. Human morality only applies to humans. Humans will often intervene in nature because we don’t like what nature is doing though.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Animals have a morality? Really?
Do you mean behaviour?
Please explain.

[Kurieuo]

Transcending/going beyond nature, I don't see is possible if we're a product of nature.

What does this mean? Does it mean to be influenced but not totally controlled by nature? Does it mean nature has no affect on you? Or something in between? What exactly did you mean when you asked if humans transcend nature?

In your eyes isn't everything a product of nature?

Consider if everything is a product of nature including humans, then so too is any perceived "morality" (whatever we mean by that).
On the other hand, you appear to want to say "yes, we're a product of nature" but then "there's this separate human morality that we have too."
This is only possible if humans can be separated from nature in some way.

Consider that we don't consider primates immoral. They're just being their natural self -- as "nature" intended them.
And yet, when humans think we're meant to be more than animals? What do we mean by that.
Aren't we just the latest most intelligent animal nature served up. How can we be more than what we are?

[Kenny]

Animals have a morality? Really?
Do you mean behaviour?
Please explain.

There has been some cases of wild animals in heard helping out an injured one, or providing protection from prey; but my point was, when we speak of morality, we are talking about human morality; which only applies to humans.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

Animals have a morality? Really?
Do you mean behaviour?
Please explain.

There has been some cases of wild animals in heard helping out an injured one, or providing protection from prey; but my point was, when we speak of morality, we are talking about human morality; which only applies to humans.

Ken

Not to make a too finer point on this BUT morality as we tend to think about it, does NOT exist outside the rational thinking ability of man.
The core of morals is the distinction between what is right and wrong.
That distinction is based on understanding of what is right and what is wrong ( objective reasoning) and how to decide what is right or wrong.
It is not instinctive, it is based on reasoning.
Animals may have a instinctive view of what is beneficial for THEM or for their group, but that does NOT equal a reasoned understanding of WHAT is right and wrong and WHY it is so.

[Kurieuo]

Animals have a morality? Really?
Do you mean behaviour?
Please explain.

There has been some cases of wild animals in heard helping out an injured one, or providing protection from prey; but my point was, when we speak of morality, we are talking about human morality; which only applies to humans.

Ken

Well you've here defined what I consider to be something defined in nature.
Is animal behaviour and/or instinct what we really call morality?

You know, bees sacrifice themselves for their hive when they sting
Some Brazillian ants sacrifice themselves to seal their nest.
Is there "bee morality" and "ant morality" also?

It still seems to me, either human morality complies to nature, or supersedes it.
That is what I mean by transcends. So if you believe nothing transcends nature, then morality has to be included in that.
Even your planes that fly don't transcend nature, but firmly depend upon it.

[Kenny]

Transcending/going beyond nature, I don't see is possible if we're a product of nature.

What does this mean? Does it mean to be influenced but not totally controlled by nature? Does it mean nature has no affect on you? Or something in between? What exactly did you mean when you asked if humans transcend nature?

In your eyes isn't everything a product of nature?

First of all, these are some very good questions. I am not sure how to answer them, but I will do the best I can.

I suspect anything material or physical, but not independent thought. Ideas, perceptions, opinions, and anything of the mind is probably the product of intelligence.

Consider if everything is a product of nature including humans, then so too is any perceived "morality" (whatever we mean by that).

No; morality would be under the category of independent thought.

On the other hand, you appear to want to say "yes, we're a product of nature" but then "there's this separate human morality that we have too."

Not just morality; anything associated with the mind.

This is only possible if humans can be separated from nature in some way.

Nature is just a term we use to describe our environment. Because we are a part of our environment, we are a part of nature.

Consider that we don't consider primates immoral. They're just being their natural self -- as "nature" intended them.

Nature doesn’t intend anything. The reason we don’t consider primates immoral is because morality is a human construct, and we only apply it to humans

And yet, when humans think we're meant to be more than animals? What do we mean by that.

Because of our intelligence, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than beasts of the field.

Aren't we just the latest most intelligent animal nature served up. How can we be more than what we are?

human morality doesn’t require us to be more than we are, after all; we created it.


Ken

[RickD]

Kenny,

It's good to see you finally figured out the quote function.

[Kenny]

Animals have a morality? Really?
Do you mean behaviour?
Please explain.

There has been some cases of wild animals in heard helping out an injured one, or providing protection from prey; but my point was, when we speak of morality, we are talking about human morality; which only applies to humans.

Ken

Well you've here defined what I consider to be something defined in nature.
Is animal behaviour and/or instinct what we really call morality?

You know, bees sacrifice themselves for their hive when they sting
Some Brazillian ants sacrifice themselves to seal their nest.
Is there "bee morality" and "ant morality" also?

I do not know enough about animals and insects to know where the line should be drawn between instinct and morality.

It still seems to me, either human morality complies to nature, or supersedes it.
That is what I mean by transcends. So if you believe nothing transcends nature, then morality has to be included in that.
Even your planes that fly don't transcend nature, but firmly depend upon it.

I believe human thought and ideas (not just morality) supersedes nature. I believe animal thoughts can as well; obviously not to the extent of human thought


Ken

[Kurieuo]

Transcending/going beyond nature, I don't see is possible if we're a product of nature.

What does this mean? Does it mean to be influenced but not totally controlled by nature? Does it mean nature has no affect on you? Or something in between? What exactly did you mean when you asked if humans transcend nature?

In your eyes isn't everything a product of nature?

First of all, these are some very good questions. I am not sure how to answer them, but I will do the best I can.

I suspect anything material or physical, but not independent thought. Ideas, perceptions, opinions, and anything of the mind is probably the product of intelligence.

Consider if everything is a product of nature including humans, then so too is any perceived "morality" (whatever we mean by that).

No; morality would be under the category of independent thought.

On the other hand, you appear to want to say "yes, we're a product of nature" but then "there's this separate human morality that we have too."

Not just morality; anything associated with the mind.

This is only possible if humans can be separated from nature in some way.

Nature is just a term we use to describe our environment. Because we are a part of our environment, we are a part of nature.

Consider that we don't consider primates immoral. They're just being their natural self -- as "nature" intended them.

Nature doesn’t intend anything. The reason we don’t consider primates immoral is because morality is a human construct, and we only apply it to humans

And yet, when humans think we're meant to be more than animals? What do we mean by that.

Because of our intelligence, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than beasts of the field.

Aren't we just the latest most intelligent animal nature served up. How can we be more than what we are?

human morality doesn’t require us to be more than we are, after all; we created it.


Ken

Well then, you're not too far from my own thoughts.

If ideas, perceptions, opinions, and anything of the mind including morality appears to supersede nature, then it is reasonable to believe that these point to something more.
Let's forget about objectivity and subjectivity. They're often loaded terms. One can see there is something more to us than just what is natural (and I'd extend that even to animals too like you).
Certainly such things don't seem confined to the normal materialistic terms that we're use to.

[Kenny]

Transcending/going beyond nature, I don't see is possible if we're a product of nature.

What does this mean? Does it mean to be influenced but not totally controlled by nature? Does it mean nature has no affect on you? Or something in between? What exactly did you mean when you asked if humans transcend nature?

In your eyes isn't everything a product of nature?

First of all, these are some very good questions. I am not sure how to answer them, but I will do the best I can.

I suspect anything material or physical, but not independent thought. Ideas, perceptions, opinions, and anything of the mind is probably the product of intelligence.

Consider if everything is a product of nature including humans, then so too is any perceived "morality" (whatever we mean by that).

No; morality would be under the category of independent thought.

On the other hand, you appear to want to say "yes, we're a product of nature" but then "there's this separate human morality that we have too."

Not just morality; anything associated with the mind.

This is only possible if humans can be separated from nature in some way.

Nature is just a term we use to describe our environment. Because we are a part of our environment, we are a part of nature.

Consider that we don't consider primates immoral. They're just being their natural self -- as "nature" intended them.

Nature doesn’t intend anything. The reason we don’t consider primates immoral is because morality is a human construct, and we only apply it to humans

And yet, when humans think we're meant to be more than animals? What do we mean by that.

Because of our intelligence, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than beasts of the field.

Aren't we just the latest most intelligent animal nature served up. How can we be more than what we are?

human morality doesn’t require us to be more than we are, after all; we created it.


Ken

Well then, you're not too far from my own thoughts.

If ideas, perceptions, opinions, and anything of the mind including morality appears to supersede nature, then it is reasonable to believe that these point to something more.
Let's forget about objectivity and subjectivity. They're often loaded terms. One can see there is something more to us than just what is natural (and I'd extend that even to animals too like you).
Certainly such things don't seem confined to the normal materialistic terms that we're use to.

True. I think confining things to the material/physical is when referring to things that exist on their own; rather than in the context of something else. Thoughts, ideas, etc. exist only in context of the physical/material.

Ken

Edit..
After rethinking my reply, If thoughts, ideas, and everything else of the mind only exists in the context of humans, and humans are a part of nature; obviously our thoughts cannot supersede us, so maybe that of the mind cannot supersede all that is included in nature.

[RickD]

Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

[Kenny]

Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

According to the definition you provided, it appears humans are not a part of nature. If that is so, then human thought does transcend nature. before I said it didn't because I was considering humans as a part of nature, and obviously our own thoughts aren't going to transcend ourselves.

Ken