>>>How about the Holocaust? Could it not have been a
>>>possibility that this was universally wrong and that those
>>>involved in this atrocious act KNEW it was wrong, but lied
>>>to themselves in order to commit it, for power's sake?
>
>>I don't think they all knew it was wrong. I think some of
>>them actually believed in it, and even liked it.
>
>I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked if this was a
>POSSIBILITY, which even your sinicism cannot deny that it
>is.
Yes, it is a possibility. But being as how there are people out there who are sick and twisted and hateful, my knowledge of human nature tells me that, out of the millions of people who were complicit (or the thousands who actually did it), some of them liked it, and did not feel it was wrong. My cynicism tells me that this number of people is probably even higher than most of us would like to think about. You honestly think that they all knew it was wrong, in the back of their minds? You think that every murderer, every thief, every prison guard who gets off on beating the prisoners feels remorse?

>
>
>>>>Does morality exist in the animal kingdom too? In the "don't
>>>>wantonly kill, don't steal, don't harm your parents" sense?
>>>
>>>No. That's the difference.
>>Disagree. Look at chimpanzees. They too have a hierarchical
>>society, they don't wantonly kill or steal from each other,
>>and the mother-child bond is very strong with chimpanzees
>>too.
>
>Ok.. I was incorrect in saying that morals don't exist in
>the animal kingdom because, obviously, on some level they
>do. But the statement was made in context with human
>morality, which I believe is vast different and more complex
>than that of a chimp. I believe the biggest difference is
>that we have the choice to obey or disobey our morality,
>whereas a chimp does not.
Yeah, it is more complex, 'cause chimpanzees don't have mail fraud and things like that. But just because chimpanzees can't talk about their morality like we do, that doesn't mean they all conform strictly to it. But to say that they have no choice whether to obey or disobey their morality, do you mean to say that all animals behave the exact same way (by species or group?) Or that they are incapable of "breaking the rules"?
>
>>>what is it then? that was the whole point of my post. what
>>>is it that compels you to love others?
>
>>Well I'd say it's cause I'm fairly well-adjusted and I grew
>>up in a loving home. Some people don't, and their "moral
>>sense" may be skewed as a consequence. I've contended with
>>Inverse before that if you grew up and you were taught that
>>stealing wasn't wrong, you wouldn't feel any guilt over it,
>>you'd only be annoyed if you got caught.
>
>I just disagree... both sides are rational, I just believe
>people innately know, regardless of upbringing, the
>difference. I mean, I could watch my father beat my mother
>as a child and know that it was wrong (scenario.. didn't
>happen to me, but friends.. you know)...
What about serial killers? Do you think they really know that what they're doing is wrong?
>
>>I'm saying, I'd rather have people live by a non-violent
>>philosophy than religion, which can so easily be twisted to
>>suit violent aims.
>
>i totally agree that it's easier to skew religion, but all
>philosophy ultimately is is questions upon questions.
Philosophy is a system of looking at the world, just like religion is. The difference, as far as I'm concerned, is that religion says, "we have all the answers because God told us so", whereas philosophy says "we've tried to figure things out to the best of our ability, and here's what we've come up with".