Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Mbyte

Skeptical Morality

86 posts in this topic

Seriously look in to the prairie dogs language. It's complex.

If animals couldn't delay self-gratification they wouldn't be able to store for the winter.

We are a tribe/herd animal.

Everything you posted besides the whole choosing to abort a child I can literally post examples or actually seen animals doing as well. Even then I wouldn't be surprised an animal or two would go out and eat some herb that would force a miscarriage.

Growing up and working with various animals all my life I've seen these attributes.

Oh well agree to disagree then.

Yeah Didn't mean to get argumentative, but i naturally am. LOL

A lot of people think it's a christian belief thing about dominating the natural world. But in my case i see myself as a steward of nature and an integral part of gaea. Becuase I have the abilities to, I do all I can to protect the rights of animals and the environment, on a local, national, and international level.

Iv'e never met an animal arguing for my rights, but one day :whistle:

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mankind never has and never will have dominion over all.....including the natural world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mankind never has and never will have dominion over all.....including the natural world.

Actually it pretty well does already, and is gaining more absolute dominion every moment. Which is the cause of most of our problems with the natural environment. We have great power, and little wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people uphold morality from the fear of law & the Chaos it will bring to their peaceful life but some people need a God, something higher they can look up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it pretty well does already

No it doesn't

Examples... Can man prevent IE - A great white from eating other fish?.. Can man prevent other animals in the wild from killing and eating each other ? Can man stop the biggest killer on earth aka the mosquito ? Doubt it.. So no mankind seriously does not hold dominion over all

Edited by Beckys_Mom
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't

Examples... Can man prevent IE - A great white from eating other fish?.. Can man prevent other animals in the wild from killing and eating each other ? Can man stop the biggest killer on earth aka the mosquito ? Doubt it.. So no mankind seriously does not hold dominion over all

You are right. All man can do is either kill or cage an animal. Man don't have the power to mentally change the mind of an animal.

If killing, is Mr Walker's definition of domination...

They are probably weaker in term of 1v1 fight, but if talking about hunting and assassination, it's usually them that attack us first in a wild forest

Edited by FlyingAngel
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People misunderstand the word dominion. It doesnt mean to have absolute control over, just to have "authority over" Eg all the comonwealth states were once dominions of great britain.

By virtue of our self aware sapience, we have that dominion over the rest of nature. We dont have a moral or ethical right to such dominion, but it exists in practical terms because of our comparative power, via the combination of our intelligence and our advanced tool making abilities. Humans put other animals in cages, not the other way round, hence we have dominion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By virtue of our self aware sapience, we have that dominion over the rest of nature.

No we do not have dominion over the rest of nature, only people and the land / countries we live in.

Humans put other animals in cages, not the other way round, hence we have dominion.

See paragraph below..

Sir David Attenborough (“Charles Darwin And The Tree Of Life” BBC 2009) Darwin’s great insight revolutionised the way in which we see the world. We now understand why there are so many different species. Why they are distributed the way they are around the world, and why their bodies and our bodies are shaped in the way that they are. Because we understand that bacteria evolve, we can devise methods of dealing with the diseases that they cause, and because we can disentangle the complex relationships between animals and plants in a natural community, we can foresee some of the consequences when we start to interfere with those communities. But above all, Darwin has shown us that we are not apart from the natural world, we do not have dominion over it. We are subject to it’s laws and processes, as are all other animals on Earth to which, indeed, we are related. http://unbound.co.uk/books/the-dissent-of-man/excerpt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. All man can do is either kill or cage an animal. Man don't have the power to mentally change the mind of an animal.

If killing, is Mr Walker's definition of domination...

They are probably weaker in term of 1v1 fight, but if talking about hunting and assassination, it's usually them that attack us first in a wild forest

To add, man doesn't have the power to prevent a natural disaster either.. And Man cannot possibly catch and cage all animals..More so those in the sea.. We can only control so much, but not all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No we do not have dominion over the rest of nature, only people and the land / countries we live in.

See paragraph below..

Sir David Attenborough (“Charles Darwin And The Tree Of Life” BBC 2009) Darwin’s great insight revolutionised the way in which we see the world. We now understand why there are so many different species. Why they are distributed the way they are around the world, and why their bodies and our bodies are shaped in the way that they are. Because we understand that bacteria evolve, we can devise methods of dealing with the diseases that they cause, and because we can disentangle the complex relationships between animals and plants in a natural community, we can foresee some of the consequences when we start to interfere with those communities. But above all, Darwin has shown us that we are not apart from the natural world, we do not have dominion over it. We are subject to it’s laws and processes, as are all other animals on Earth to which, indeed, we are related. http://unbound.co.uk...-of-man/excerpt

Unfortunately that is wrong We DO have power over the naturla world we are NOT subject to its laws and processes if we dont accept the consequences of them. At the moment, in large part, we are using that power to destroy it, but the power aso can be used to improve on nature and to restore the harm done.

Attenborough is pointing out that there are consequences for how we treat the world. But that doesnt lessen our power. It just means we should use it well and wisely. Attenborough is pointing out that we should live sustainably within the worlds ecosystem, Quite right, but we are not, because we have the power not to. The consequences of dominion or power are not always good. Dominion does not mean, for example total control, just power and authority. We HAVE the power via our technology, and only we can limit the extent of our AUTHORITY over nature.

Slave owners once had dominion over their slaves That didnt make it right, or create positive outcomes, and sometimes the slaves rose up and bit back. Nonetheless the slave owners had dominion over the slaves via physical power and legal authority..

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Man cannot possibly catch and cage all animals..More so those in the sea.. We can only control so much, but not all

but but Noah did it in ancient times...with only his family.... on a boat! (seriously sarcasm)

Unfortunately that is wrong We DO have power over the naturla world we are NOT subject to its laws and processes if we dont accept the consequences of them. At the moment, in large part, we are using that power to destroy it, but the power aso can be used to improve on nature and to restore the harm done.

Every place that is built under sea level and flooded proved this wrong. Every place built on a fault line and had an earthquake proved this wrong. Nature is unwavering and is patient. Sure we can cut down a few trees, level mountains, make a species extinct but that isn't anywhere near the domination and control people had over slaves. Believe me I tried screaming at the sky for it to stop snowing but for some odd reason it didn't listen. If I dig a hole and just leave it eventually without help from me it will eventually fill itself up. If I don't actively repair damage to my home nature will tear it down. Sure we use nature to our advantage but never did we have control over it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately that is wrong We DO have power over the naturla world we are NOT subject to its laws and processes if we dont accept the consequences of them. At the moment, in large part, we are using that power to destroy it, but the power aso can be used to improve on nature and to restore the harm done.

I seriously doubt someone such as Sir David Attenbourgh and a genius like Charles Darwin are wrong and you are right... We are a part of nature, we evolved through nature, we do not have control over ALL.. We are shaped the way we are because of nature, like every other animal on this planet... So, YES we are subject to it's laws and processes ...always have been .. And when I say control over ALL.. that includes mother nature / natural disasters etc ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately that is wrong We DO have power over the naturla world we are NOT subject to its laws and processes if we dont accept the consequences of them. At the moment, in large part, we are using that power to destroy it, but the power aso can be used to improve on nature and to restore the harm done.

Attenborough is pointing out that there are consequences for how we treat the world. But that doesnt lessen our power. It just means we should use it well and wisely. Attenborough is pointing out that we should live sustainably within the worlds ecosystem, Quite right, but we are not, because we have the power not to. The consequences of dominion or power are not always good. Dominion does not mean, for example total control, just power and authority. We HAVE the power via our technology, and only we can limit the extent of our AUTHORITY over nature.

Slave owners once had dominion over their slaves That didnt make it right, or create positive outcomes, and sometimes the slaves rose up and bit back. Nonetheless the slave owners had dominion over the slaves via physical power and legal authority..

Actually we don't have dominion over nature. The only reason we are so "developed" is because we happened to find oil, an energy rich substance, which we used to rise above the tides of nature. There are people in New York fighting for fuel because nature is very much in control of them. Don't be fooled that we have control, a puff of oil seperates us from a cold hard reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several commentators have misread what i was saying.

Dominion does not mean total control. It means power and authority over something. Increasingly humans have power and authority over the natural world, hence the mess we find ourselves in.

There are no natural forces which, in sum, can oppose the dominion of man. Sure they may "kick back", cause a few natural disastese etc but that does not lessen our dominion. Dominion does not bring wisdom, only power and authority. If we use all the oil or destroy all the habitat and fresh water, that only illustrates our power/authority over nature, and nature's weakness compared to us.

Once upon a time, nature could have destroyed humanity and indeed came close to doing so on a number of occasions in early prehistory Now, apart from a rogue comet or a solar flare that wil not happen and in a few hundred years as we spread out among the stars nature will be no threat at al to us as a apsecies. Once nature in all its forms dominated our daily/yearly physical life, and our most basic spiritual beliefs and understandings. That is no longer so. Rather than propitiating nature we now impose our will upon it and shape it to our wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. Wait how much snow do you get where you live? I find that to be a huge thing for people about control over nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no natural forces which, in sum, can oppose the dominion of man. Sure they may "kick back", cause a few natural disastese etc but that does not lessen our dominion. Dominion does not bring wisdom, only power and authority. If we use all the oil or destroy all the habitat and fresh water, that only illustrates our power/authority over nature, and nature's weakness compared to us.

Not agreed. Humans depends on the nature to survive, as do all animals, no exception. When you give the nature love, it will respond you with love, that's environment comfort. When you harm it, it seems to show you that it can't do anything or fight back, but there's always a retribution that comes after. Cause leads to effect.

In your example, I'll show you where you were wrong. Destroying all the habitat like burning and cutting down all the trees? Sure you can do that, but don't forget where the oxygen you are breathing right now come from. The same for fresh water, don't forget where it comes from. Humans don't generate these things on their own nor they didn't came from the sky. You probably don't know much how you got food or how food is created. Plants can pollinate because there are insects, especially bees because they fly from flower to flower. Plants can grow because of water. Insects can make the soil better.

Cut out fresh water, what's left to you is animals in the farm, polluted air, machines and guns. That's when you conclude who will dominate who. Oh wait, there's not enough fresh water to feed the animals, we can probably invent artificial water and food.

Humans may have the power to partially destroy the nature, but not all. While the nature has the power to wipe all humanity. It's just that the nature is passive, it will wait you to attack first to fight back. Simply visit the 3rd world, where trees and insects barely exist. You'll conclude who suffer more, the nature or men. Nature has no feeling and a destroyed nature is still a nature. It's invincible. It simply changes its form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. Wait how much snow do you get where you live? I find that to be a huge thing for people about control over nature.

I agree.. I guess not everyone can fully understand how powerful nature can be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not agreed. Humans depends on the nature to survive, as do all animals, no exception. When you give the nature love, it will respond you with love, that's environment comfort. When you harm it, it seems to show you that it can't do anything or fight back, but there's always a retribution that comes after. Cause leads to effect.

In your example, I'll show you where you were wrong. Destroying all the habitat like burning and cutting down all the trees? Sure you can do that, but don't forget where the oxygen you are breathing right now come from. The same for fresh water, don't forget where it comes from. Humans don't generate these things on their own nor they didn't came from the sky. You probably don't know much how you got food or how food is created. Plants can pollinate because there are insects, especially bees because they fly from flower to flower. Plants can grow because of water. Insects can make the soil better.

Cut out fresh water, what's left to you is animals in the farm, polluted air, machines and guns. That's when you conclude who will dominate who. Oh wait, there's not enough fresh water to feed the animals, we can probably invent artificial water and food.

Humans may have the power to partially destroy the nature, but not all. While the nature has the power to wipe all humanity. It's just that the nature is passive, it will wait you to attack first to fight back. Simply visit the 3rd world, where trees and insects barely exist. You'll conclude who suffer more, the nature or men. Nature has no feeling and a destroyed nature is still a nature. It's invincible. It simply changes its form.

What you speak of here are all evidences of the dominion of man over nature. Without dominion we could not destroy, modify, or alter nature, in the ways you describe. Dominion does not imply common sense or good consequences. And it does not mean we can control it, or the consequences of our interactions with it. If we have the power and "authority " to modify nature, we have dominion over it, no matter where that leads us.

In time, if we survive, we will achieve a sustainable, cooperative relationship with the natural world of which we are part. If we do not achieve this, we will not survive. But it will still mean dominion, because our minds and our technology will be maintaining that balance and sustainabilty, via our will.

From the time we developed fire and flint tools we began to establish power/dominion over nature. The australian aboriginal people millenia ago changed the entire ecosystem, flora and fauna, of a continent, with nothing more than fire and stone tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several commentators have misread what i was saying.

in a few hundred years as we spread out among the stars nature will be no threat at al to us as a apsecies.

When this happens then you'll be correct. But until then, nature is still the boss. This dominion over nature you speak of is an illusion - albeit an effective one. Your thinking is too small here. We have been able to manipulate nature for only a short time, and only because it has been benign towards us and allowed us to.

As an analogy, you can think of us as slaves to nature, and at present we're like Spartacus rebelling, and thinking we've got it licked. That was an illusion too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you speak of here are all evidences of the dominion of man over nature. Without dominion we could not destroy, modify, or alter nature, in the ways you describe. Dominion does not imply common sense or good consequences. And it does not mean we can control it, or the consequences of our interactions with it. If we have the power and "authority " to modify nature, we have dominion over it, no matter where that leads us.

How is that destroying or altering have anything to do with dominion? Mosquitos can kill more people than the number of people dying in a war; does that mean mosquitos dominate over humans? I don't think so.

Not sure what kind of dominion you are talking about but the number of people killed because of the nature such as dry weather, heat, earthquake, storm, inundation in considerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When this happens then you'll be correct. But until then, nature is still the boss. This dominion over nature you speak of is an illusion - albeit an effective one. Your thinking is too small here. We have been able to manipulate nature for only a short time, and only because it has been benign towards us and allowed us to.

As an analogy, you can think of us as slaves to nature, and at present we're like Spartacus rebelling, and thinking we've got it licked. That was an illusion too.

No the slave masters had dominion over their slaves. (power and authority) An occasional rebellion didnt change this. Again, i think people dont understand the term dominion. It does not mean total control over, just power and authority. It doesnt mean we use that power sensibly or wisely, just that we have it And ceratinly some major natural evens are, for now, beyond our control, but basically the world as it is today is a product of human manipulation of it. Very little of it remains natural, as it was 100000 or even 10000 years ago.

In biblical terms god didnt give humans the abilty to control nature, just the power and authority to do so. In humanist terms we don't have the ablity to control all of nature, but we have the power and authority (because there is no one over us in authority) to do so, if we have the ability. And to the limits of our abilities we exercise them, and hence dominion.

I think some people like to argue the toss on this because they don,t like the biblical idea of god giving humans authority and control over nature. Fair enough. But we have established both, whether god exists or not, and need to look at the consequences of exercising that power and authority much more carefully..

When nature was the boss, no one went outside without saying a prayer to the weather gods. No one planted a crop without doing the same. No one entered a forest without offering something to the gods of the forest. Everyone was dependent on nature for life and death, directly and personally. That began to end with the advent of agriculture and pastoralism,

Today our dependence on nature is much less so. It is rare for nature to affect people, or even make them stop and think, let alone offer a prayer to the spirits or gods, despite the occasional calamitous events which occur. It doesn't matter if the temp is 40 degrees C or minus 10, humans have adapted and survived and now live safely, in comfort, and insulated from those extremes.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the slave masters had dominion over their slaves. (power and authority) An occasional rebellion didnt change this.

I don't think you understood me. My analogy was that humans are the slaves and nature is the slave master - and the occasional rebellion not changing this is exactly what I said. You're looking at this through the eyes of human timescales. Think bigger. Our current circumstances is merely a temporary rebellion. It remains to be seen whether this becomes a permanent one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understood me. My analogy was that humans are the slaves and nature is the slave master - and the occasional rebellion not changing this is exactly what I said. You're looking at this through the eyes of human timescales. Think bigger. Our current circumstances is merely a temporary rebellion. It remains to be seen whether this becomes a permanent one.

I understood and disagreed. We are the slave masters. Nature is the slave. Its occasional rebellion doesnt mean we lack power and authority over it in general. Ideally we should free the slave and learn to work in cooperation and harmony with it .

However humans have intelligence and self aware purpose; nature does not. It can only "react", so this is not a ideal analogy. If nature "hurts us" when we run out of food water or arable soil, it wont be the result of nature, but of us and our interference with nature. In a way we are both the slave and the master in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood and disagreed. We are the slave masters. Nature is the slave. Its occasional rebellion doesnt mean we lack power and authority over it in general. Ideally we should free the slave and learn to work in cooperation and harmony with it .

However humans have intelligence and self aware purpose; nature does not. It can only "react", so this is not a ideal analogy. If nature "hurts us" when we run out of food water or arable soil, it wont be the result of nature, but of us and our interference with nature. In a way we are both the slave and the master in this situation.

It's a nice idea but, unfortunately, incorrect. Human civilisation has exploited a settled period in Earth's history without major climate or geological changes. 10,000 years may seem a lot but it's a mere blink of an eye. This has provided the illusion of being masters - I suspect we'll be well and truly disabused of this notion before too long. And it really has nothing to do with our own actions. Even if we'd behaved impeccably toward our environment, it will one day eject us from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Symbiosis if anything. The more we throw the balance out of whack the more damage we sustain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.