Philosphy has killed many trees over these issues, but I think without a broad view of science all discussion is useless. Why? Because chimpanzees are capable of what we would describe as compassion. Bonobos are rather sexually loose by our standards but their experience of sex (for enjoyment even over and above the need for procreation) is very close to our own. It is hotly debated whether these can be described as “emotions” (personally, I don’t see why not, but IANAScientist) but the fact remains that matters we may call “moral issues” might be hardwired biological reactions. So then, can they even be called “morals”?

Back to how you feel: if you feel good being good to people, and feel horrible when seeing an injustice done, and argue about “truth to power”, these are all shadows of biological, chemical impulses that are eons old. It could be that the primate who tries to help an injured bird is just transfering a species-level survival instinct to help another primate onto a bird. Is that any different than what we are doing? If so, I don’t think that demeans us, but rather simply gives background to a basic impulse that our species has elevated to high morality (or spirituality, what-have-you).

I have no answers, but I think it is important to bring the biological sciences into a discussion like this because of the implications given to our definitions and meanings of things like morality, ethics, compassion, and love.

::::KBS

Another thought I had, along the lines of the excuse/no excuse thoght, was that actions that are ‘bad’ seem to be in categories. For instance, the stoning, was along the lines of “anyone who does X gets stoned” so the men felt ‘right’ or justified.

However, with ‘good’ acts, there isn’t the same sort of category set up. It’s true that when people do things like get married, or have birthdays, or what have you, there tend to be parties and gifts involved, but I would say that when I see someone do a ‘good’ act, there isn’t any category it falls into, or any justification or conscious reasoning that’s involved. It just feels ‘right.’

And, it tends to be on a much more individual level- a heart connection to another individual. Whether I make dinner for my wife, or she gives me a back rub, or I buy a friend dinner, or I see someone on the side of the road with a flat tire and stop to help.

There’s no category there. There’s no reason or justification. I just do it or not. And it feels good in my heart.

Wondering what folks thing of this.

I, too, disagree with Bob Proctor, even when I listen closely. When he says “there is no right and wrong there is only that which works – that which produces the desired results. Right and wrong is a perspective.” He stops short- because “desired results” is a perspective as well. And “that which works” is a perspective.

When I look at the world’s religions (hold on, I’m not turning this into a religious debate.. ), I see remarkably similar conclusions about what’s right and wrong. Stealing is wrong. Killing is wrong. Defending yourself tends to be okay.

And, atheists seem to agree with many of the ideas of right and wrong as well- although there may be disagreement about where the principles come from.

When we get into the details- the nuances, as you mentioned Steve- that’s when our minds/cultures/judgements/excuses/etc come in (I’m not equating culture with excuses- just make a laundry list).

I bet if you took each of those men, and had them sit with their hearts and emotions for a long enough time, on their own, away from any cultural imperatives or peer pressure- I’m wondering if they would come to the same conclusion about the stoning.

Most horrific things are justified with reasons. Most acts of love are not justified with reasons- they just feel good. We don’t tend to justify, excuse, or explain when we do something good.

It’s when we do something wrong, that suddenly we need to show some sacred text, or pages of judicial precedents, or explanations of “I was following orders.”

To me, that’s proof enough that right and wrong are not relative.