Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:44:18 +0200 (MET DST)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: 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.

Is this why revolutionaries oppose forced birth control (actually caste 
control) in India and would propose the right to free abortion on demand and 
sex education. 
>
>
>>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.

Well, partially true. But fragmentation of family relations under 
imperialism certainly does not make this a universal law..
>

>
>>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.]

Is this based on individual species like lemmings? Or do animals in flock 
faced with a forest fire or war act out of survival of the fitess?

>
>>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.

Don,t think i agree with the above. Morality amongst humans is determined by 
the dominant ideology and institution of the times..Or maybe you mean the 
same thing?
>
malecki




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