From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) Subject: Re: Morality? (was Re: , keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> |> >>So, you are saying that it isn't possible for an instinctive act |> >>to be moral one? |> > |> >I like to think that many things are possible. Explain to me |> >how instinctive acts can be moral acts, and I am happy to listen. |> |> For example, if it were instinctive not to murder... Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there would be nothing voluntary about it. |> |> >>That is, in order for an act to be an act of morality, |> >>the person must consider the immoral action but then disregard |> >>it? |> > |> >Weaker than that. There must be the possibility that the |> >organism - it's not just people we are talking about - can |> >consider alternatives. |> |> So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other |> beings mimics theirs? You are starting to get the point. Mimicry is not necessarily the same as the action being imitated. A Parrot saying "Pretty Polly" isn't necessarily commenting on the pulchritude of Polly. |> And, how much emphasis do you place on intelligence? See above. |> Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but |> they don't. They do. I and other posters have given you many examples of exactly this, but you seem to have a very short memory. |> Are you trying to say that this isn't an act of morality because |> most animals aren't intelligent enough to think like we do? I'm saying: "There must be the possibility that the organism - it's not just people we are talking about - can consider alternatives." It's right there in the posting you are replying to. jon.