> On May 23, 1:36 pm, veritas yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On May 22, 10:08 pm, Michael Price yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On May 13, 12:28 am, Bill Patterson gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> On May 11, 8:55�am, Howard Brazee brazee.net> wrote:

>>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:21:43 -0700 (PDT), Bill Patterson
>>>>> gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> "Genes that guide our moral judgment" is just silly, except in the
>>>>>> limited sense that we have individual predispositions to find some
>>>>>> things pleasurable or not.

>>>>> Of course it is easy to observe in other species characteristics which
>>>>> look like morality. � What causes those?

>>>> Since morality is possible only to the willful, any tracing of origins
>>>> and genealogy would be simply expanding on an analogy that is not very
>>>> apt. Attributing human-like motivations to non-humans is a literary
>>>> device, not an ethical tool.

>>> No it's an interpretation of the evidence which is fairly
>>> substantive, that
>>> several species are capable of making moral distinctions. For
>>> instance
>>> some apes when given a reward for an action that is less than the
>>> reward they saw another ape being given for the same action get angry.
>>> This indicates that they consider not just what makes them happen (the
>>> reward does) but what is "fair". Several species have been observed
>>> helping others and being helped in return even though there is no
>>> direct
>>> reward for helping.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -

>> That is why they must be wiped out immediately! We decide what is
>> fair, don't give them the chance to help anything even though there is
>> no direct reward for helping. Really bad habit to let animals start
>> that crap. Next is calls for equal gun permits. Ken Hogan

>
> You're against the right to arm bears?