Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 18:02:58 -0600
From: Lisa Rogers <LROGERS-AT-deq.state.ut.us>
Subject:  morals?



On 96-06-28 13:04:51 EDT, JDeRuvo-AT-aol.com wrote:

>But humans don't possess all the
>behavior of the animal kingdom.  We mate face to face (for the most
part), we>take a mate for life (not like a dog, where 'any dog will
do') and we protect>our children.  Unlike some in the animal kingdom
who eat their young.

Sorry, wrong, bad biology, simply not true.  Animals are really much
more "civilized" than you seem to think, and any critters that
habitually destroyed their own offspring wouldn't last long.  Making
more offspring survive, as much as possible, that is the tendency of
animal behavior, [probably as a result of natural selection.]  That
is why _many_ animals [and plants] do provide some form of parental
care.


>We develop and maintain relationships.  

All social mammals spend most of their lives with a small number of
others that they know very well.  Adult male chimps have territories
next door to mom and sis their whole lives, and hang out with their
brothers and uncles a lot.


>Our competitions aren't based on kill or be
>killed.  An ordinary man doesn't do business by achieving the top by
>assasination and then killing to stay there.

Only because it "ordinarily" doesn't pay to do so! due in part to the
punishments that may be meted out by others.  But remove the
penalties for murder and allow incentives for murder,
and what do we have all around us today?  Plenty of murder.


>Whereas in the animal kingdom,
>battles for control of territory often go to the death.  

Not true.  Quite the reverse.  Where does one get these ideas? 
Non-humans are well known for displays and contests that rarely
involve injury.  Even if one is bound to win, to attempt to kill
another may increase risk of injury to the winner, and once the loser
knows hse is going to lose, it might as well back off, and generally
does.  [Most animals don't have the social status problem of "losing
face" and other such stuff.]


>And humanity tends
>to try and give relief to those who are weak, rather than let them
die
>because they couldn't survive.  

Nonsense.  Bad anthropology.  In most socities, including THIS one,
most adoptions of children are of _relatives_, or they are used for
labor, or both.  "Innate morality" indeed, are you not aware of the
very bad and getting worse situation for poor children in the US?


>I think these, and many other behaviors show
>some innate morality.  


"Innate" ??  Where would it have come from?  I say face it, there is
no reasonable way to squeeze "constant morality" out of biology or
anthropology.
Humans invent "morality", just like the rest of ideology, in the
context of material, infrastructural factors, and in the attempt to
influence _other's_ behavior, for their _own_ benefit.

[I say, didn't somebody named Marx say something like that too?]


>Morality doesn't
>change depending on who is the victor.  Morality is constant.  And
there are >basic elements of morality that are shared by all
cultures.

Sorry, but this is very bad anthropology.  IMO.  The only "human
universal" that I can think of is the fact that homicide is generally
not considered murder if the victim is sufficiently distantly related
to one's own family, clan or tribe.  If it's a very close relation,
one's own family or clan may deal with it internally.  At
intermediate levels of relatedness, such as another clan or village,
many societies use "blood money", i.e. payments in cattle or women
and such to settle the debt.  But none of this requires a
conventional notion of "morality".  Murder and other socially defined
crimes are things that really piss people off, and we have to find
some way to deal with other people, because they affect our own
lives.

lisa


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---