Should we not measure objective morality by the morality displayed in nature?

Question

Or is it necessary that the morals of a technologically advanced society be different from those of an environment that has been successfull for billions of years?

Answer 1

An interesting point. And, at first glance, I would say yes. However, from the Christian point of view, nature was corrupted along with the fall of man. Also, different kinds of animals function in different ways. Many elements of nature function in a strictly selfish, self-preserving way - in the individualistic sense. Others are more centred on the collectivity.
Some animals owned by man (dogs, horses) have been known to behave in seemingly unselfish ways, putting their owners life before their own. Hard to know what motivates them - is it the self-preserving instinct for the collectivity that has been deterred toward the human owner? I don't know.
So, not being an expert in zoology, I would still suggest that we need a more absolute measure of morality than nature, even though we can learn some things from nature.

Answer 2

So where does morality come from, if not from God? Two places: evolution and secular reasoning. Despite the notion that beasts behave bestially, scientists studying our primate relatives, such as chimpanzees, see evolutionary rudiments of morality: behaviors that look for all the world like altruism, sympathy, moral disapproval sharing - even notions of fairness. This is exactly what we'd expect if human motility, like many other behaviors, is built partly on the genes of our ancestors. Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago ecology and evolution professor. Empathy, cooperation, fairness and reciprocity -- caring about the well-being of others seems like a very human trait. But Frans de Waal shares some surprising videos of behavioral tests, on primates and other mammals, that show how many of these moral traits all of us

Answer 3

Shogun....I have a hard time understanding exactly what the morality of nature is. A tree has morals? An animal? Or is it laws/patterns and instincts?

Answer 4

There are no morals displayed in nature. For morality to exist, there must be free choice. Aside from man, creatures in nature do not have free choice, therefore, no morality.

Answer 5

There is no morality in nature, it is simply survival of the fittest from trees to animals to all living things that do not possess the ability to rationalize like human beings.Kill or be killed, to eat or starve. To procreate or abandon the species.Nature has the ability to renew itself as man does not.He can, like animals, produce offspring, but he himself or herself, eventually dies as does things in nature itself, but he is non-=renewable.Humans have a mind that rationalizes all things, for good or for evil, while nature does not. It is this "thought process or thinking" which causes mankind to suffer or to persevere and advance, but as you have seen many times, such advancement is not always positive in its result.

Answer 6

What morality is displayed in nature? Besides, God created nature. Why not follow after the One who created the nature instead?

FYI - The earth is only about 10,000 years old at the most.

Answer 7

"Nature" has no morals, just instinct. That is one of the things which differentiates man from the animals. If you wish to live like an animal, please do so in some remote area, away from people.

Answer 8

If we were to base objective morality on morality displaye in nature, then it would be relative morality.

morality is subjective...it just is.

Answer 9

No we shouldnt, if that were to happen we could just say the Black Dahlia killer was looking for food. Nice way of asking a stupid question in a smart way.

Answer 10

I get what you mean. Animals don't have malicious intent, they merely do what they do for survival. Also, they take what they need and leave the rest, unlike humans, who take it all and leave nothing. I think it would behoove the human race to get in touch with some of their animal instincts...