Hi Connie,

Perhaps this is not an issue for this list serve and we can take it off line and you contact me off line.

Dennis (who has a much better way with words than I) summed it up nicely, with regards morality in the "wild".

one of the main principles of morality issues is: "the end does not justify the means used".

We can talk about abortion, euthanasia, "Jihad" (elimination of infidels), the right to bear arms, no smoking policies, the loss of living organisms and human livelihood in the Gulf with the oil spill, etc....and there are differences of opinions by many.....depending on who one is talking to. Thus there are MANY grey areas regarding moral issues. These issues are created by humans, as rules of co-operative living in a civilization.

In nature, it is all natural selection for survival of the species. That is evolution. It does not have to be civilized. It is what it is!

eric

----- Original Message -----
From: Connie Sidles
To: aceros at mindspring.com
Sent: 6/28/2010 12:47:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] a question


Dear Eric, I'd be interested if you would expound further on a related question: is nature all black-and-white or are there contradictions? Gray areas, perhaps, or are there just exceptions (or aberrant behavior)?


By contradictions, I guess I mean exceptions to the laws of nature?


Also, if you've got the time, I'm very interested in when human traits of kindness, morality, and good vs evil evolved. If we are to take a sociobiological view of human evolution (as I do), then somewhere between a bug and us, these traits evolved. Exactly where on the evolutionary scale did they appear?


And another interesting one: Must you have civilization to have morality? - Connie





On Jun 28, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Eric Kowalczyk wrote:


the answer is instinct and survival of the fittest; if you are concerned about the female being drowned, since drowning a female might be considered not evolutionary adaptive, this might be looked at as aberrant behavior due to skewed sex ratios resulting from human disturbed/amended habitat;.......no morals involved; you are right, these are ducks and to the best of my knowledge, no supreme duck has written a book on morals yet.

just my 2 cents

Eric
Seattle


----- Original Message -----
From: Connie Sidles
To: tweeters
Sent: 6/28/2010 9:33:24 AM
Subject: [Tweeters] a question


Hey tweets, as I work to write my new book about the Fill, I thought of a question I would like to throw out to you (hoping it's not too far off-topic):
Is nature morally black-and-white, or are there moral shades of gray? Or are there no morals at all, and if so, is there good and evil?


Example: Two days ago I watched four male Gadwalls gang up on a lone female and attempt to mate with her. One male would mount her and push her head underwater, meanwhile trying to fight off the other males. One male would eventually push off the copulating male and take his place. This went on and on. The female kept trying to escape (and to keep breathing), but she couldn't get away from so many males. The whole gang disappeared behind some bushes on Main Pond, so I don't know the outcome, but it wouldn't surprise me if the males had drowned the female.


Realizing that ducks aren't people, and that nature is "red in tooth and claw," still, what am I to make of this scene? Where is the good in such an action? Even evolutionary good.


Nature has laws. Were those male ducks breaking the law? I'd be interested in your thoughts. - Connie, Seattle


constancesidles at gmail.com
www.constancypress.com
_______________________________________________
Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters