Paul M Foster wrote:
> Ian C. Blenke wrote:
>
>>
>> Likewise, can you really point at ANY human society where that hasn't
>> been a problem?
>
>
> Nope. That's why we're here now. Ultimately, human societies succumb
> to depravity and self-destruct.
Human societies eventually succumb to lawlessness. Without adequate law
and control to enforce a standard code of conduct, Humans revert to a
rather ugly form of existance.
I also believe that people are essentially good. I really believe most
people _want_ to live in a civil society. Some are willing to stand up
_with_ others to take a stand for civility, many would rather someone
else take that role.
>> Any society you designate may have the outward appearance of lacking
>> such behavior, but human nature dictates it _did_ happen, it just
>> wasn't documented.
>>
>
> I'm inclined to disagree to some extent. While it may be true that
> such behaviors (not just promiscuity, but avarice and other "sins")
> may have occurred throughout history, there are two points where I'd
> diverge here. First, there is the question of *how much* such behavior
> occurred. I'm inclined to believe that in the early stages of a
> civilization, such behavior is extremely rare. The second influencing
> factor is the acceptance level of a society. To the extent that
> society comes to accept such behavior, its prevalence will increase.
>
> Again, sex is just one point. It's the overall morality of a society
> that presages its demise.
As you state below, it tends to be cyclical. Morality guides law. As
long as law is enforced, society gets along. Law picks its battles. As
cultures join the fray, the morality of those cultures need to be
integrated into law.
I guess I look at it this way: every culture has guiding morals that
have allowed that culture to exist through to today. Not all of those
morals are well placed, but they've generally served that segment of
humanity well over time. The problem is when cultures with clashing
morals _must_ interact or live together. In that case, you have issues
for Law to sort out, hopefully that all cultures in that society can
accept and agree to tolerate each other under.
>> Humans are animals. Understanding that is the first step in dealing
>> with our emergent behaviors.
>>
>
> Er, no. Humans have animal bodies, but they are not animals. Animals
> don't build skyscrapers, drive cars or write poetry. Now if you
> subscribe to the idea that humans and animals are just so much
> chemical debris, then I suppose you have a point. However, I don't. I
> believe there is a spark that animates life, completely beyond the
> chemicals that compose its bodies. That spark (the *soul* you might
> say) is what defines behavior. While it can be influenced by chemical
> (drugs, poisons), ultimately the soul is independent of the body and
> controls what the body does. This includes plants, animals and humans.
Humans are animals. We're surely not plants.
We happen to have evolved some level of sentience, and the ability to
think beyond our immediate survival needs. This has allowed us to
achieve great things.
I also don't believe in souls. But that's me. The biology that is me
allows neurons in my brain to fire in incredibly complex ways that allow
me to perceive and interact with the world around me, and dream to
create something beyond that reality.
This from a survivor of 8 years of Roman Catholic education (complete
with nuns). I suppose I simply couldn't bring myself to believe what was
being told to me. Granted, it instilled a great code of ethics in my
upbringing (I wouldn't be the sysadmin that I am today if I were the
unethical sort), and I do appreciate that.
I am a scientist. A godless scientist. An unbeliever in anything outside
of pure logic and what can be explained scientifically. It's who I am.
But I understand religion. I understand the power of belief. Everyone
needs hope. My hope simply isn't in a god (or gods).
> Deviant sexual behavior is far more rare in nature than you imagine.
> It has little or no survival benefit, which is the point of all
> behavior. Because sex is pleasurable, it happens a lot. Not just for
> the purpose of procreation, though ultimately that is why we have it.
> Sex can take any shape you like. The question is what shape makes it
> "moral"? You can say that this changes from time to time, and it does.
> However, the original point was that when this happens (in the
> direction of more laxness), it is an indicator of the pending demise
> of a society.
"Because sex is pleasurable, it happens a lot". If it didn't, much of
the biological impetus to procreate would vanish.
Things are cyclical. Abstinance is re-emerging as a viable option in
today's youth. While I personally think that's a great thing, I also
think it is linked to our declining educational system. While having
fully educated teenagers deciding to abstain on their own is a step in
the right direction, I also remember what it was like going through that
myself at that age (hormones aren't something easily dismissed).
As for "deviant sexual behavior", if it's between consenting adults away
from the public eye behind closed doors, should I really care? I don't
think so. Why should it really matter?
>> To say "sex is not a casual thing" is also severely myopic.
>>
>> Nothing in life is black and white. There are always varying shades
>> of grey. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I am willing
>> to listen, think about things a little, and adapt to the realities
>> presented to me the best I can. "Do unto others as you would have
>> them do unto you" is a pretty good summation of one of the primary
>> morals for any society.
>>
>
> Situational ethics.
>
> The choice of black, white or gray is entirely up to the individual
> and the society. As an individual, you make a conscious choice about
> where you draw that gray line. I draw life in far more black and white
> than you do. There are far fewer shades of gray for me.
And as long as you are understanding of people who do have a different
line than you do, and their line doesn't affect you directly, there is
nothing wrong with that.
The diversity of these very lines between cultures suggests there is no
"one way" that is 100% socially acceptable between all cultures. When
you throw all cultures into one society, you begin to have culture clashes.
> It should be obvious that any society which has complete laxness of
> moral and ethical standards cannot survive. It will actually
> self-destruct, slowly or quickly.
It's true. The question is what emphasis on moral and ethical standards
make a society tolerant and accepting.
The more "black and white" the culture, the more militant the culture
class with other cultures within a society.
The more accepting and tolerant the culture, the more likely other
tolerant cultures are to get along with them.
- Ian C. Blenke <icblenke@nks.net>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:05:58 EDT