Nature doesn't have right or wrong

>>131868647
You could view morality as an extension of survival strategies, as in: behaviour that increases the chance of producing offspring that survives to adult age.

For group animals this includes ways of maintaining social order.

>>131871620
Thank you for reply. But you didn't answer my question. Show me please this behavior outside of human world.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

>>131871705
Whatever morality you observe from another species will be totally alien to us since morality is shaped by our culture and society. Any animal morality we observe and state will inescapably be tinged with human bias.

YOU DON'T CREATE AN OP LIKE YOURS WITHOUT BEING A GOALPOST MOVING FAGGOT

The closest I can think of is a study of some kind of monkey that would refrain from eating all the flood it was given, saving some for others in its group. That could also just be a survival strategy as well, though.

>>131868647
Nature doesn't have civilization, citizens, cities, technology, transportation, utilities, marriage, etc. Fuck you nihilist, kill yourself then.

>>131872745
>YOU DON'T CREATE AN OP LIKE YOURS WITHOUT BEING A GOALPOST MOVING FAGGOT

And a violent reaction award by lifty-scum goes to (((you)))

File: gayvolution.jpg (331KB, 905x1280px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 905x1280px

>>131868647
'morality' is a word -- an arbitrary construct of homo-sapien societies -- not unlike 'good' or 'evil' -- and is a wholly relative term and purely a matter of individual perception

>>131872549
>Whatever morality you observe from another species will be totally alien to us since morality is shaped by our culture and society. Any animal morality we observe and state will inescapably be tinged with human bias.

Interesting view. Do you think we can't view other culture's life?

>>131873346

replying to /pol's deranged AI chatbot....are you high my nigga?

>>131873726
>t....are you high my nigga?
Shut up jew-nigger and go back to sucking soros dick. How's your immigration policy?

>>131868647
reciprocal behaviour like apes delousing each other could be seen as displays of basic morality

>>131874064
>reciprocal behaviour like apes delousing each other could be seen as displays of basic morality
Thanks for giving me that thought. It gave me a bit of thought.... but that doesn't answer right or wrong. Removing pests from fur isn't morality.

>>131873634
we can but only as we understand it

>>131868647

wrong

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/health/lifes-work-de-waal/index.html

there is order in the universe, including animal relations

>>131868647
>Please /pol/ show it to me.
Brazil

>>131874512
It entirely depends on your definition of right and wrong. If you define morality as a strategy to keep society functioning effectively in a sustainable way, then you can definitely see moral behaviour in animals.
In the short term, a monkey has nothing to gain from delousing another monkey. It just wastes his time. But that investment pays of when the other monkey delouses him in turn. If the other monkey acts 'immorally' and refuses to reciprocate, then the group will know not to delouse that monkey anymore, thus causing him to become a social pariah because of selfish behaviour.

>>131868647
Read the bonobo and the athiest fag. You'll probably be able to relate since you dirty japs are monkeys

>>131874833
>wrong
>http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/health/lifes-work-de-waal/index.html
>there is order in the universe, including animal relations

I tried to read fake news, but it was too much sjw.

>>131868647
no such thing as morality. Only empathy, and animals are definitely capable of that.

>>131875102
>Read the bonobo and the athiest fag
link?
I haven't. But it will go my to read list.

>>131874941
>It entirely depends on your definition of right and wrong.
I'm sorry, but I do not follow. Monkey can remove own lice. Removing each other's lice doesn't build right or wrong, but just help to remove lice.

>>131875140

>>131875278

the bonobo and the atheist was written by the man who's the subject of the article I linked you to. it's an interview of the author. here are some relevant quotes;

>Instead of looking at human morality as something we design in our heads — the philosophers want us to believe that by logic and reasoning we arrive at moral principles — I think it works very differently. We have a lot of feelings and tendencies that drive us to moral solutions, and yes, we often then later try to justify these solutions and come up with reasons for them, but that's often secondarily.

>In primate behavior we can see they have a sense of fairness. They have empathy: they enforce rules among themselves, they can delay gratification and they can control their impulses. So many of these tendencies that go into our moralities can be found in other animals, but instead of them coming from logic and reasoning, they actually come from our primate psychology most of the time.

File: 800px_COLOURBOX19003568.jpg (66KB, 786x800px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 786x800px

>>131868647
>Nature doesn't have right or wrong
Wrong. Might makes right and everyone obeys the cycle that nature imposes on the different species in order for evolution or extinction to occur. Those that do not obey risk death for themselves and their species in exchange for gifts.
This is the reason why humanity picked up a stick and evolved beyond nature's influence. Humanity had no claws to hunt.
No fur or skin thick enough to protect them from injuries and parasites
And most importantly no hope for evolution in themselves by being idle like the rest of the animals we share the planet with.
Then follows a rebellion which ends with the creation of the false nature, the "Urban Jungle" so to speak or "The tower of Babylon". No, I'm not saying that higher consciousness is an evolutionary defect or anomaly only that we're way ahead from everyone and it will end badly just like every time this happens all because we're aiming too high and consider ourselves already evolved beyond Nature's influence.

>Have you ever seen animals outside of humans with no human contact display morality?
Animals do have morals in the form of instincts and sometimes because of the individual nature of a certain specimen.

>>131875440
No, they can't remove lice from their own back. That's something for which they need to co-operate with other monkeys.

>Removing each other's lice doesn't build right or wrong, but just help to remove lice
My point is that right and wrong can be defined by utility. Removing lice has utility.

File: 1498070156891.jpg (10KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x236px

>>131868647
>Right is Survival, Wrong is death.

There are things however that you can do to positively effect your short term survival that ensures your long term negatively.

Classical morality existed long before the Abrahamic religions because it is a long term survival strategy. When a civilization steps away from these morals and into degeneracy it collapses.

>Degeneracy can be defined as that which does not or negatively effect the procuration and contortion of the species.

Bulgaria and Belgium,
Those are lovely statements, but show me videos of animals where average human can say actions of this animal is right or wrong.
My premise - you can't find anything like that because it doesn't exist.

>>131868647
Sounds Chinese. You have to go back, Zhang.

>>131876061
>but show me videos of animals where average human can say actions of this animal is right or wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4DCp1w6kPY

>>131876376
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4DCp1w6kPY
What does have with this our discussion?

>>131876989
You were asking about morality. I was pointing out that animals can show compassion and equality to different species such as humans. In the case of people being raised by wolves there was nothing stopping the pack from just waiting to get hungry and eat the outsider. Also with the boy raised by monkeys. There was nothing stopping an alpha from scaring off or attacking the outsider but instead it chose to allow it to integrate and thus continue living. I'm not saying animals are always good or anything only that they display their morality differently than us but it's still there. the good and evil.

File: 1498277000606-pol.jpg (70KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x600px

Many studies have been done on dogs and wolves in regards to treat parity and fairness. They have a sense of justice and equality, and this is especially undiluted in wolves because they have no vested interest in pleasing humans.
Other tests show that canines as observers to staged human interactions will avoid the deceptive, unhelpful, or unfair actor in the test.

animals have animal morality. its different than (((human morality))). animal morality is based entirely on survival of the fittest. human morality has been molded by (((superstitious desert religions))) for thousands of years.

>>131868647

Animals are beyond good and evil, and therefore better than us. They live as God intended. The real God, not the one you real about in the corrupted Bible.