Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

[Hoggy]

Most sinners are in denial - schizos.

[MAYA EL]

Sin is a man made concept

[Hoggy]

He hopes

[Sushan]

Most sinners are in denial - schizos.

Most sinners do not accept that they do sins, that is true. Yet, what we are discussing about here is regarding the concept of the 'sin'.

As the author suggests, if sins are just man made agreements, what is wrong in doing them unless you harm to others by them? If we take this further, unless it is a law, anyone can simply say that what he/she is doing/did is not a sin, rather than trying to deny it. Agreements have the quality that anyone who disagrees can remain without accepting it. So, if someone believes that what he/she does is not a sin, inevitably he/she gets the right to deny it. What do you think?

[Sushan]

Sin is a man made concept

I too think so. When we look at the things that we believe as sins, most of the other animals perform them. So, does it have an effect on them? What might happen to them after their death? Will they rot in hell?

And if that does not happen to them, according to what theory that such a thing will happen to us, humans, after our deaths because of our sins? How are we superior than other animals, as we all, including humans, are various species of animals, with various levels of brain development (Once again that is also a human concept and we do not know how other animals see or think about us).

[Sushan]

He hopes

I am sorry if I did not get you correctly. I think that you have said that the author hopes the sins to be man-made agreements. So, what do you believe? Are the sins and their so called repercussions are a part of a divine plan? If so, is that applicable to the other animal species as well? If not applicable to them, why is that? Is it fair?

[Sculptor1]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

What author? What book?

Yes, there is no need to prove that sins are man made.
Such rules have developed without which humans would never have co-operated enough to expand world-wide.
The earliest rules were probably already common place before Homo Erectus emerged from Africa to dominate Europe and Asia. We can see the nascent and instinctive beginnings of such behaviours in Benobos.

With the complexity of the brain, humans lived their lives in cultural worlds of their own creation. Such worlds were not immune to the pressures of selection and so evolved moral systems, and myths to justify them.

[Sculptor1]

Most sinners are in denial - schizos.

Since sins are in the mind of the observer I am not suprised to see you say that.
For the "sinner" is innocent, and sins are not a reality for them.

"- schizos." is obsurd and redundant, unless you are talking about yourself.

[Sushan]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

What author? What book?

Yes, there is no need to prove that sins are man made.
Such rules have developed without which humans would never have co-operated enough to expand world-wide.
The earliest rules were probably already common place before Homo Erectus emerged from Africa to dominate Europe and Asia. We can see the nascent and instinctive beginnings of such behaviours in Benobos.

With the complexity of the brain, humans lived their lives in cultural worlds of their own creation. Such worlds were not immune to the pressures of selection and so evolved moral systems, and myths to justify them.

Here we are discussing the book Wilderness Cry by Dr. Hilary L. Hunt, and I think that is obvious since this is a topic under the philosophical book of the month forum.

Well, I see your point. Moral values were important in the process of human evolution, and to convince people regarding those concepts, the concept-makers had to create myths. So, you have a valid point of argument.

Yet, we see that the animals survive in the jungle without any moral value. There, the only law is the stronger one getting favored in the process of survival. Still such animals have not gone extinct. This leaves me with the question, are the moral values important as much as we think?

[Sushan]

Most sinners are in denial - schizos.

Since sins are in the mind of the observer I am not suprised to see you say that.
For the "sinner" is innocent, and sins are not a reality for them.

"- schizos." is obsurd and redundant, unless you are talking about yourself.

Not having knowledge regarding a particular law is seen when a person is caught for some minor offence. Yet the fault remains as a fault because not knowing the existence of a law is a fault too.

I think that is similar regarding sins (if there is a real thing called 'sins' exist). Maybe the sinner actually has no idea that he is doing a sin. But at the same time, he/ she may pretend that he/she is unaware of such a sin, and that can be taken as a denial.

[Sculptor1]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

What author? What book?

Yes, there is no need to prove that sins are man made.
Such rules have developed without which humans would never have co-operated enough to expand world-wide.
The earliest rules were probably already common place before Homo Erectus emerged from Africa to dominate Europe and Asia. We can see the nascent and instinctive beginnings of such behaviours in Benobos.

With the complexity of the brain, humans lived their lives in cultural worlds of their own creation. Such worlds were not immune to the pressures of selection and so evolved moral systems, and myths to justify them.

Here we are discussing the book Wilderness Cry by Dr. Hilary L. Hunt, and I think that is obvious since this is a topic under the philosophical book of the month forum.

Thank you.
It is customary to mention the book in the title of the thread or better still reserve your comments to the place in the Forum reserved for discussions on the book of the month.

Well, I see your point. Moral values were important in the process of human evolution, and to convince people regarding those concepts, the concept-makers had to create myths. So, you have a valid point of argument.

Yet, we see that the animals survive in the jungle without any moral value.

I beg to differ. A bitch suckles her young, and the wolf respects the heirarchy of the pack. These are at least nascent moral systems, but there is not doubt that mammalian behaviour is at the heart of all morality.
The difference in humans is that our brains begin close to a tabula rasa , but not absolutely so. I think it fair to say that amongst land mammals no species owes less to innate morality than humans, yet there are remnants of moral emotional systems of nurture, co-operation and conflict, competition that are employed by formalised moral systems.
Just because morality is not codified by animals does not mean there is no moral value in their behaviours.
My view is that if humans were a completely blank page when born then we could be moulded to the most frightful cold logical behaviours, even robotic.
But even Asimov had to imbue his robots with a strict moral code, in his 3 laws.

There, the only law is the stronger one getting favored in the process of survival. Still such animals have not gone extinct. This leaves me with the question, are the moral values important as much as we think?

That is a very narrow view of nature. All mammals are characterised by co-operation which is the basis of all morality.
To assess the importance of moral values, you have to at first understand them.

[Sculptor1]

Most sinners are in denial - schizos.

Since sins are in the mind of the observer I am not suprised to see you say that.
For the "sinner" is innocent, and sins are not a reality for them.

"- schizos." is obsurd and redundant, unless you are talking about yourself.

Not having knowledge regarding a particular law is seen when a person is caught for some minor offence. Yet the fault remains as a fault because not knowing the existence of a law is a fault too.

I think that is similar regarding sins (if there is a real thing called 'sins' exist). Maybe the sinner actually has no idea that he is doing a sin. But at the same time, he/ she may pretend that he/she is unaware of such a sin, and that can be taken as a denial.

Why, on earth would you think that. Such a position is a heavy handed Stalinist position. Would I be correct in thinking that you were a, er, that you have "faith"??

There are no such thing as sins.
Prove me wrong!

[Sushan]

Most sinners are in denial - schizos.

Since sins are in the mind of the observer I am not suprised to see you say that.
For the "sinner" is innocent, and sins are not a reality for them.

"- schizos." is obsurd and redundant, unless you are talking about yourself.

Not having knowledge regarding a particular law is seen when a person is caught for some minor offence. Yet the fault remains as a fault because not knowing the existence of a law is a fault too.

I think that is similar regarding sins (if there is a real thing called 'sins' exist). Maybe the sinner actually has no idea that he is doing a sin. But at the same time, he/ she may pretend that he/she is unaware of such a sin, and that can be taken as a denial.

Why, on earth would you think that. Such a position is a heavy handed Stalinist position. Would I be correct in thinking that you were a, er, that you have "faith"??

There are no such thing as sins.
Prove me wrong!

Here I stand on the same side as you are. I do not have any sort of faith which is bestowed upon me. All I believe is that we can do whatever the things as far as we are ready to accept the responsibility and the consequences that follow. The responsibilities and the consequences are made into a system called law because not all the humans are readily accepting their wrong doings.

Some of these wrong doings cannot be included in the system of law since they cannot be logically proven as wrong, yet they are wrong and harming the society. And there are some other things, that even they can be included in a law enforcement system, there is no use in acting against them after they have already happened (Like killing a person). So for such things, to prevent them from happening, some wise men have created so called 'sins' and validated them with various mythical stories.

That is why I say, sins are just man-made agreements.

[Sushan]

The author argues that we, humans, are not superior than any other animals. We too have basic needs like sex, food and shelter like them. But we have made agreements and laws among us making polygamy, killing others for foods, etc, sins. So the point that the author is trying to prove is that sins are not defined by divine laws, but only by mere agreements among humans. Do you agree with this point of view? Are sins merely man-made laws?

What author? What book?

Yes, there is no need to prove that sins are man made.
Such rules have developed without which humans would never have co-operated enough to expand world-wide.
The earliest rules were probably already common place before Homo Erectus emerged from Africa to dominate Europe and Asia. We can see the nascent and instinctive beginnings of such behaviours in Benobos.

With the complexity of the brain, humans lived their lives in cultural worlds of their own creation. Such worlds were not immune to the pressures of selection and so evolved moral systems, and myths to justify them.

Here we are discussing the book Wilderness Cry by Dr. Hilary L. Hunt, and I think that is obvious since this is a topic under the philosophical book of the month forum.

Thank you.
It is customary to mention the book in the title of the thread or better still reserve your comments to the place in the Forum reserved for discussions on the book of the month.

Well, I see your point. Moral values were important in the process of human evolution, and to convince people regarding those concepts, the concept-makers had to create myths. So, you have a valid point of argument.

Yet, we see that the animals survive in the jungle without any moral value.

I beg to differ. A bitch suckles her young, and the wolf respects the heirarchy of the pack. These are at least nascent moral systems, but there is not doubt that mammalian behaviour is at the heart of all morality.
The difference in humans is that our brains begin close to a tabula rasa , but not absolutely so. I think it fair to say that amongst land mammals no species owes less to innate morality than humans, yet there are remnants of moral emotional systems of nurture, co-operation and conflict, competition that are employed by formalised moral systems.
Just because morality is not codified by animals does not mean there is no moral value in their behaviours.
My view is that if humans were a completely blank page when born then we could be moulded to the most frightful cold logical behaviours, even robotic.
But even Asimov had to imbue his robots with a strict moral code, in his 3 laws.

There, the only law is the stronger one getting favored in the process of survival. Still such animals have not gone extinct. This leaves me with the question, are the moral values important as much as we think?

That is a very narrow view of nature. All mammals are characterised by co-operation which is the basis of all morality.
To assess the importance of moral values, you have to at first understand them.

I think the moral values and their implementations are found in their basic form in the human society as well. What we do more than animals is that we consistently talk about such values and we have agreements and laws to make sure that those values are maintained. Though there are various differences, we all belong to a single specie. So the strongest one surviving theory does not apply to us.

But we see that Elephants, Lions, Bears attacking humans and also we, humans, killing various sorts of species. There we observe how strongest one survive.

So there are 'moral values (or moral values systems)' within the same species, but not in between various species.

I think the concept of 'sins' has nothing to do with that