From: kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr)
Subject: Re: A Jehovah's Witness reply to Corey
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:20:21 GMT

In article <1992Jul8.205305.313@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <Bqu8oA.MFH@world.std.com> cpeters@world.std.com (Christopher Peters) writes:
>
>>CONSIDER THIS:
>>  Jeffrey Dahmer murdered and ate several persons.  Was he *wrong*?
>>  Why or why not?  A wolf could attack, kill, and eat a rabbit, but
>>  few persons would consider the wolf wrong.  If we are just the next
>>  step in the evolutionary ladder, why do we judge Jeffrey Dahmer
>>  differently than the wolf?
>
>Bad example.  Much better is that when a new male lion takes over a pride he
>is very likely to kill and eat any current young lions which are progeny of
>the previous male.
>
>Do we consider this wrong?
>
>The answer is that we judge wolves by wolf rules, we judge lions by lion
>rules and we judge people by people rules.  Watching certain behaviors in
>animals and saying "AHA!  That behavior is natural in humans because it is
>natural in this animal!"  or "AHA!  That behavior is unnatural in humans
>because these disgusting animals engage in it!" is just as bad as
>anthropomorphizing animal-other-than-human behavior.
>
>Also -- note that evolution isn't a ladder, it is a tree.  One doesn't
>ascend or descend the evolutionary "ladder", one diverges along branches
>of the evolutionary "tree".
>
This aguement seems to conclude that human behavior is distinct from
animal behavior. Animals are related via the evolutionary relationship
and, therefore, exhibit certain related characteristics that we would
expect because of those relationships. Then come the humans who we claim
are just as related. But all of a sudden we now have only a phisioligical
relationship ... behavioral relationships are discounted.

I think individuals use the animal behavior relationship to support personal
agendas as they choose. If they want to do something that is unacceptable,
then they look to the animal kingdom for justification to do what "comes
naturally".  But if the animal kingdom does things that nausiate us, then
!presto changeo! that is something that we have evolved out of. It's a process
of the pick-and-choose lifestyle. We like some animal behavior, so we object
when cliams of morality attmpt to prevent it. Others we do not like, but we
hang our hat on the morality hook and set up a standard by which others
are judged.

This is linked with our obsession to pursue personal freedom rather than
act responsibly to maintain freedom. Many want a dual freedom ... the 
freedom to do as we please followed by the freedom to choose the
consequences. If the consequences do not work out to our liking, then we
force the hand of government to make it so. 

Why do animals seem to have behavior standards that are consistent thorughout
time, but humans are consistently bickering over values and morals. Some try to say that ther are no absolutes, but if they realy belive that, then they can't
be absolutely sure that they are right. If there are behavioral standards for
animals, then shouldn't there be some standard for humans?  If certain animal
behaviors are immoral, then why are they immoral?  That begs my question of
"where did morality come from?" When did it originate? Is it just another
emergent? People have tried to expalain this "emergent" concept, every 
"emergent" characteristic presented seems more to be a predisposed
characteristic. Just like putting lead balls and styrofoam beads in a
box, shaking the box, and observing the separation to make a claim for order
out of chaos in a closed system. Why do they do that? .. because there physical
properties dictate it. Why do they have those properties? Why do those 
properties exist? Where did they come from? Did they exist befor the big bang?
Did all of the properties that hold atoms together exist before there were
atoms? If material and associated properties came into existence simultaneously,the we ought to be able to prove that ... start with absolutely nothing and
somehow bring the basic elements of atomic structure into existence with
all of the known phisical properties and obedient to all of the physical
laws. 

My arguement would begin with "In the begining God created (out of nothing)"
If yours begins with "in the begining there was space, matter, and time", then
we have just distinguished between your God and mine. From this point on, the
conclusions you draw from scientific observation and the ones I would draw.
From your perspective, everything draws its structure, and hence its purpose
and reasoning from prior stages of space, matter, and time. There is no reason
to think that human behavior should be judged differently than animal behavior.
If it is reasonable to think that some animal related behavior in humans is
tolerable then others should be tolerable as well. If my assessment of a
behaviour you may wish to express would prevent your desired expression of 
personal freedom, and if it is ok for you to get the government to stop me,
then by what standard, on the basis of a space-matter-time relationship, are
you going to ask the government to prevent the Jeff's of the world from
expressing their behavior of choice that other "self appointed moralists"
may find offensive. After all, to them it seemed to just come naturally.

karl