Justified?

[DPMartin]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

[Skepdick]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

Humans hold each other accountable for their behaviour.

Tigers don't.

Accountability is a fundamental mechanism for socialising wild animals.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where man has to justify his actions [right or wrong] to others e.g. in court [legal, politics], to God [divine moral], parents, society, [customs & traditions] etc., that is not morality proper.

Within morality proper, there is no question that man having to "justify" to anyone for his morally related actions.

Within morality, the moral agent with assistance from the collective need to progress the inherent moral function within his self so that he can align and flow spontaneously, positively and progressively with the inherent moral standard.

The moral standard is a moral fact but when communicated [for relevant purposes] it has to be justified, i.e. verification and justification empirically and philosophically via a credible moral framework and system.

Note male lion cubs when they reached a certain age are forcefully driven out of their pride spontaneously in time to prevent incest [inbreeding]. That is the spontaneous natural "morality" in action.

[Age]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

Because human beings do NOT need to do the same thing.

If, and when, human beings do the same thing, when they do NOT need to, then they KNOW it is Wrong to do so.

Therefore, because human beings KNOW a behavior is Wrong, then this is when they will 'try' to "justify" their Wrong behaviors.

[Age]

Where man has to justify his actions [right or wrong] to others e.g. in court [legal, politics], to God [divine moral], parents, society, [customs & traditions] etc., that is not morality proper.

LOL When would a human being 'have to' "justify" their 'right' actions/behaviors?

Within morality proper, there is no question that man having to "justify" to anyone for his morally related actions.

This is just nonsensical, illogical, and irrational.

Within morality, the moral agent with assistance from the collective need to progress the inherent moral function within his self so that he can align and flow spontaneously, positively and progressively with the inherent moral standard.

Until you provide a UNIFIED agreed and accept, so called, "inherent moral standard", then what you say here is unworkable and even unfathomable.

So, what is this, alleged, 'inherent moral standard', EXACTLY?

Your refusal to answer this clarifying question OPENLY and Honestly is the EVIDENCE and the PROOF that some need to SEE and KNOW that you do NOT actually even know what you are talking about here.

The moral standard is a moral fact but when communicated [for relevant purposes] it has to be justified, i.e. verification and justification empirically and philosophically via a credible moral framework and system.

LOL

Just because you may think you sound like you know what you are talking about, does NOT mean that you do know, and by the way, you do NOT even sound like you know what you are talking about here.

Saying, "The 'moral standard' is a 'moral fact', is absurd and ludicrous and makes the rest of what you say moot.

What is a 'moral fact'? And, then how is that a 'moral standard'?

And, is this 'moral fact/standard' in relation to 'you', or in relation to ALL?

If it is in relation to ALL, then WHY do you, supposedly, KNOW 'it', and, WHY do you NOT inform "others" of what 'it' IS?

Note male lion cubs when they reached a certain age are forcefully driven out of their pride spontaneously in time to prevent incest [inbreeding].

LOL What does 'spontaneously' actually mean, to 'you'?

That is the spontaneous natural "morality" in action.

Again, what is with the use of the 'spontaneous' word here?

That word, in a way, contradicts what you are 'trying to' argue for and say here.

By the way, lions doing things naturally is NOT a 'morality' issue. What lions do is just what they do.

'Morality' is solely a human being issue, as ONLY human beings can do what is 'morally Right or Wrong'.

If as you say, there was a " 'morality' in action " within lions, then they would kill their prey in a way that 'you', human beings, say and call "humanely". Which, when LOOKED AT Honestly, is REALLY a oxymoron. As it is ONLY 'humans' who do immoral things to animals, which obviously including their own species.

Oh, and by the way, the reason lions are naturally made to NOT 'inbreed' is just so that the species continues in as good health as it can.

[DPMartin]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

Humans hold each other accountable for their behavior.

Tigers don't.

Accountability is a fundamental mechanism for socializing wild animals.

i wouldn't say so, dog packs have no accountability and they are social, many wild animals such as herds and the like have no accountability. its whoever has the power or strength in most cases and that strength is tested constantly until another can dominate. in the wild domination is the rule, an the tiger dominated the other. no one sets in court or in judgement of what was right or wrong.

[DPMartin]

Where man has to justify his actions [right or wrong] to others e.g. in court [legal, politics], to God [divine moral], parents, society, [customs & traditions] etc., that is not morality proper.

Within morality proper, there is no question that man having to "justify" to anyone for his morally related actions.

Within morality, the moral agent with assistance from the collective need to progress the inherent moral function within his self so that he can align and flow spontaneously, positively and progressively with the inherent moral standard.

The moral standard is a moral fact but when communicated [for relevant purposes] it has to be justified, i.e. verification and justification empirically and philosophically via a credible moral framework and system.

Note male lion cubs when they reached a certain age are forcefully driven out of their pride spontaneously in time to prevent incest [inbreeding]. That is the spontaneous natural "morality" in action.

na, the male lion protects his breeding rights by domination, otherwise they will dominate him. no morals there.


the rest you wrote make no sense at all. maybe you can throw more words at it to see what sticks

[DPMartin]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

Because human beings do NOT need to do the same thing.

If, and when, human beings do the same thing, when they do NOT need to, then they KNOW it is Wrong to do so.

Therefore, because human beings KNOW a behavior is Wrong, then this is when they will 'try' to "justify" their Wrong behaviors.

sorry you're way off, the law justifies does it not? then one needs the law to justify right when accused of wrong, doesn't one? if an agreement says you can, and you do, it justifies you, doesn't it? doesn't matter what your personal feelings are on right and wrong, or what you know or don't know, the law justifies. the agreement justifies. no, you can't justify yourself in what you do without an agreement.


oh and humans have been doing what that tiger did, for thousands of years, so at the least there are those who believe they needed to do the same as the tiger.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where man has to justify his actions [right or wrong] to others e.g. in court [legal, politics], to God [divine moral], parents, society, [customs & traditions] etc., that is not morality proper.

Within morality proper, there is no question that man having to "justify" to anyone for his morally related actions.

Within morality, the moral agent with assistance from the collective need to progress the inherent moral function within his self so that he can align and flow spontaneously, positively and progressively with the inherent moral standard.

The moral standard is a moral fact but when communicated [for relevant purposes] it has to be justified, i.e. verification and justification empirically and philosophically via a credible moral framework and system.

Note male lion cubs when they reached a certain age are forcefully driven out of their pride spontaneously in time to prevent incest [inbreeding]. That is the spontaneous natural "morality" in action.

na, the male lion protects his breeding rights by domination, otherwise they will dominate him. no morals there.


the rest you wrote make no sense at all. maybe you can throw more words at it to see what sticks

Unfortunately your thinking is too shallow, i.e. limited to appearance of the obvious.
The deeper underlying reasons of why young males are kicked our of the pride is to prevent inbreeding which is a threat to the survival of the pride and the species.

Here is a note,

• Male lions are kicked out of their birth pride at the age of a year old by which ... of inbreeding not found in the wild where young males are ousted from the pride ... sometimes lionesses group on the old dominant male and force him to leave or ...
  http://vkeo.progettocascina.it/do-male- ... hters.html

Unfortunately the link to the full article is lost.

[Age]

why is it that man have the need to be justified for his actions?

a tiger maintains his territory and and kills another tiger in that tiger's territory. but there is no justification needed or desired for or by the tiger's actions to kill the other. but if a man do the same, he better have justification.

Why?

Because human beings do NOT need to do the same thing.

If, and when, human beings do the same thing, when they do NOT need to, then they KNOW it is Wrong to do so.

Therefore, because human beings KNOW a behavior is Wrong, then this is when they will 'try' to "justify" their Wrong behaviors.

sorry you're way off, the law justifies does it not?

Not necessarily so.

The law states some things are justified, when they truly are not.

Also, when you do the wrong thing, you 'try to' "justify" doing that, correct?

then one needs the law to justify right when accused of wrong, doesn't one?

But you have JUMPED to this conclusion, and question, BEFORE I even replied to the first question here.

And, I did NOT arrive at the same answer as you obviously did, for clarification.

Only human beings make, or attempt to make, justifications. So, EVERY adult human being can 'justify', or can 'try to' "justify", a behavior. No one 'needs' the, so called, "law" to do this for them.

if an agreement says you can, and you do, it justifies you, doesn't it?

ONLY if and when EVERY one is in agreement.

doesn't matter what your personal feelings are on right and wrong, or what you know or don't know, the law justifies.

Do not forget the 'law' is NOT its own identity. The 'law' is only what is agreed upon by just some human beings.

the agreement justifies.

The is VERY True.

Just like what is true and right is solely dependent upon 'agreement', as I have continually being alluding to in this forum.

no, you can't justify yourself in what you do without an agreement.

Did I EVER say 'you' could?

oh and humans have been doing what that tiger did, for thousands of years, so at the least there are those who believe they needed to do the same as the tiger.

And, 'you', human beings, can BELIEVE whatever you like to BELIEVE.

Oh, and by the way, for hundreds of thousands of years human beings BELIEVED they 'had to' do what that tiger did, but they did NOT 'have to', and they certainly do NOT 'have to' NOW, from the days of when this was being written.

Human beings continually evolve learning and understanding more and more. They will also continue to evolve to learn and understand WHY they did not have to and do not have to do what the tiger does in that example.

[DPMartin]

Where man has to justify his actions [right or wrong] to others e.g. in court [legal, politics], to God [divine moral], parents, society, [customs & traditions] etc., that is not morality proper.

Within morality proper, there is no question that man having to "justify" to anyone for his morally related actions.

Within morality, the moral agent with assistance from the collective need to progress the inherent moral function within his self so that he can align and flow spontaneously, positively and progressively with the inherent moral standard.

The moral standard is a moral fact but when communicated [for relevant purposes] it has to be justified, i.e. verification and justification empirically and philosophically via a credible moral framework and system.

Note male lion cubs when they reached a certain age are forcefully driven out of their pride spontaneously in time to prevent incest [inbreeding]. That is the spontaneous natural "morality" in action.

na, the male lion protects his breeding rights by domination, otherwise they will dominate him. no morals there.


the rest you wrote make no sense at all. maybe you can throw more words at it to see what sticks

Unfortunately your thinking is too shallow, i.e. limited to appearance of the obvious.
The deeper underlying reasons of why young males are kicked our of the pride is to prevent inbreeding which is a threat to the survival of the pride and the species.

Here is a note,

• Male lions are kicked out of their birth pride at the age of a year old by which ... of inbreeding not found in the wild where young males are ousted from the pride ... sometimes lionesses group on the old dominant male and force him to leave or ...
  http://vkeo.progettocascina.it/do-male- ... hters.html

Unfortunately the link to the full article is lost.

you're right that the observation is the obvious but what lion told what human that their reasoning was to really prevent inbreeding and not the obvious observable. so are you going to believe them on your link there, or your lying eyes is what they are telling you.

and the subject isn't about the results of lions.

[DPMartin]

Because human beings do NOT need to do the same thing.

If, and when, human beings do the same thing, when they do NOT need to, then they KNOW it is Wrong to do so.

Therefore, because human beings KNOW a behavior is Wrong, then this is when they will 'try' to "justify" their Wrong behaviors.

sorry you're way off, the law justifies does it not?

Not necessarily so.

The law states some things are justified, when they truly are not.

Also, when you do the wrong thing, you 'try to' "justify" doing that, correct?

then one needs the law to justify right when accused of wrong, doesn't one?

But you have JUMPED to this conclusion, and question, BEFORE I even replied to the first question here.

And, I did NOT arrive at the same answer as you obviously did, for clarification.

Only human beings make, or attempt to make, justifications. So, EVERY adult human being can 'justify', or can 'try to' "justify", a behavior. No one 'needs' the, so called, "law" to do this for them.

if an agreement says you can, and you do, it justifies you, doesn't it?

ONLY if and when EVERY one is in agreement.

doesn't matter what your personal feelings are on right and wrong, or what you know or don't know, the law justifies.

Do not forget the 'law' is NOT its own identity. The 'law' is only what is agreed upon by just some human beings.

the agreement justifies.

The is VERY True.

Just like what is true and right is solely dependent upon 'agreement', as I have continually being alluding to in this forum.

no, you can't justify yourself in what you do without an agreement.

Did I EVER say 'you' could?

oh and humans have been doing what that tiger did, for thousands of years, so at the least there are those who believe they needed to do the same as the tiger.

And, 'you', human beings, can BELIEVE whatever you like to BELIEVE.

Oh, and by the way, for hundreds of thousands of years human beings BELIEVED they 'had to' do what that tiger did, but they did NOT 'have to', and they certainly do NOT 'have to' NOW, from the days of when this was being written.

Human beings continually evolve learning and understanding more and more. They will also continue to evolve to learn and understand WHY they did not have to and do not have to do what the tiger does in that example.

na,na na na, human's circumstances may change to demand different activity, but human nature never changes that doesn't evolve as it seems you wish it would.

and agreement is the justification whether it be law or marriage or contract or friendship. without the agreement there is no justification, of which is necessary for man to coexist. because its also human nature that never changes to dominate and subdue ones surroundings and take what you please.

[Age]

sorry you're way off, the law justifies does it not?

Not necessarily so.

The law states some things are justified, when they truly are not.

Also, when you do the wrong thing, you 'try to' "justify" doing that, correct?

then one needs the law to justify right when accused of wrong, doesn't one?

But you have JUMPED to this conclusion, and question, BEFORE I even replied to the first question here.

And, I did NOT arrive at the same answer as you obviously did, for clarification.

Only human beings make, or attempt to make, justifications. So, EVERY adult human being can 'justify', or can 'try to' "justify", a behavior. No one 'needs' the, so called, "law" to do this for them.

if an agreement says you can, and you do, it justifies you, doesn't it?

ONLY if and when EVERY one is in agreement.

doesn't matter what your personal feelings are on right and wrong, or what you know or don't know, the law justifies.

Do not forget the 'law' is NOT its own identity. The 'law' is only what is agreed upon by just some human beings.

the agreement justifies.

The is VERY True.

Just like what is true and right is solely dependent upon 'agreement', as I have continually being alluding to in this forum.

no, you can't justify yourself in what you do without an agreement.

Did I EVER say 'you' could?

oh and humans have been doing what that tiger did, for thousands of years, so at the least there are those who believe they needed to do the same as the tiger.

And, 'you', human beings, can BELIEVE whatever you like to BELIEVE.

Oh, and by the way, for hundreds of thousands of years human beings BELIEVED they 'had to' do what that tiger did, but they did NOT 'have to', and they certainly do NOT 'have to' NOW, from the days of when this was being written.

Human beings continually evolve learning and understanding more and more. They will also continue to evolve to learn and understand WHY they did not have to and do not have to do what the tiger does in that example.

na,na na na, human's circumstances may change to demand different activity, but human nature never changes that doesn't evolve as it seems you wish it would.

I suggest if ANY one wants to use the phrase 'human nature', then they be able to inform "others" of what 'human nature' IS, EXACTLY, and then provide the supporting evidence and proof for their claim.

If you do not do this here now, then this means you can NOT and/or will NOT even try to back up and support your own claim here.

and agreement is the justification whether it be law or marriage or contract or friendship. without the agreement there is no justification, of which is necessary for man to coexist.

But 'that', what is 'justified' by agreement, is ONLY "justified" to and by those who are 'in agreement'. Which obviously does NOT mean that 'that' is nor could be Truly justified.

Obviously what is in agreement by somebis NOT necessarily what is nor could even be truly 'justified'

because its also human nature that never changes to dominate and subdue ones surroundings and take what you please.

But that, to me, is NOT human nature' AT ALL. And find it extremely hilarious that ANY in this day and age still believes this to be true.

But, I certainly agree that 'you', adult human beings, use the, 'being greedy and selfish is just human nature' EXCUSE a lot, in an attempt to 'try to' "justify" your wrong behaviors.

Saying, " but that is just 'human nature', " and "which cannot be changed", is about one of the oldest and the WEAKEST EXCUSES for human beings' WRONG DOING.

That phrase, "human nature", when used to 'try to'"justify" doing wrong is NEVER used by children. It is a phrase only used by 'you', adult human beings, when 'you're have no more EXCUSES left.

Look, 'you', human beings, can NEVER 'justify' your WRONG behaviors. Although you love 'trying to', and you can keep 'trying to' buy, you will NEVER be able to Truly 'justify' your WRONG doing. That is the end of that.

[DPMartin]

But that, to me, is NOT human nature' AT ALL. And find it extremely hilarious that ANY in this day and age still believes this to be true.

But, I certainly agree that 'you', adult human beings, use the, 'being greedy and selfish is just human nature' EXCUSE a lot, in an attempt to 'try to' "justify" your wrong behaviors.

Saying, " but that is just 'human nature', " and "which cannot be changed", is about one of the oldest and the WEAKEST EXCUSES for human beings' WRONG DOING.

That phrase, "human nature", when used to 'try to '"justify" doing wrong is NEVER used by children. It is a phrase only used by 'you', adult human beings, when 'you're have no more EXCUSES left.

Look, 'you', human beings, can NEVER 'justify' your WRONG behaviors. Although you love 'trying to', and you can keep 'trying to' buy, you will NEVER be able to Truly 'justify' your WRONG doing. That is the end of that.

you want to believe that human nature is "good" but it seems you see it as good in your judgement of what is good and evil, of which no one has to agree. and just what qualifies you to determine what is good and evil? and if that reasoning in your mind is because you are a human, then you're no better of a judge of what is good or evil then harden criminals in prisons, because those people are human also, which would have the same qualifications, therefore has just as much right to declare what is good or evil as you.

and "that's just human nature" isn't an excuse, its what is and has been and will be, and one must deal with it as is, not as one wants it to be. false expectations of the world and human nature will fill your life full of regrets and disappointments.

[Age]

But that, to me, is NOT human nature' AT ALL. And find it extremely hilarious that ANY in this day and age still believes this to be true.

But, I certainly agree that 'you', adult human beings, use the, 'being greedy and selfish is just human nature' EXCUSE a lot, in an attempt to 'try to' "justify" your wrong behaviors.

Saying, " but that is just 'human nature', " and "which cannot be changed", is about one of the oldest and the WEAKEST EXCUSES for human beings' WRONG DOING.

That phrase, "human nature", when used to 'try to '"justify" doing wrong is NEVER used by children. It is a phrase only used by 'you', adult human beings, when 'you're have no more EXCUSES left.

Look, 'you', human beings, can NEVER 'justify' your WRONG behaviors. Although you love 'trying to', and you can keep 'trying to' buy, you will NEVER be able to Truly 'justify' your WRONG doing. That is the end of that.

you want to believe that human nature is "good" but it seems you see it as good in your judgement of what is good and evil, of which no one has to agree. and just what qualifies you to determine what is good and evil?

First, I NEVER "want to believe ANY thing". Is this understood?

Just about EVERY adult human being will protect and take care of their young. This is a natural instinct. This is how the species continues to exist.

Sure, we all grow up to be greedy and selfish individuals, but this is just a learned behavior. Our natural instinct is to love and care for our young. Loving and caring for one another is noticed more fully when "others" are in need of help.

Second, OF COURSE, I see 'what is good', in my judgement of what is good and evil. How do you see 'what is good'? From 'your' perspective, or from 'another's' perspective?

Third, DOUBLE OF COURSE, NO one has to agree with my own personal perspective.

Fourth, what actually qualifies me to determine what is good and evil is 'THAT', which is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.

ONLY 'THAT', what is agreed upon and accepted by EVERY one is what can be Truly 'justified' in relation to what is good and/or evil.

and if that reasoning in your mind is because you are a human, then you're no better of a judge of what is good or evil then harden criminals in prisons, because those people are human also, which would have the same qualifications, therefore has just as much right to declare what is good or evil as you.

OF COURSE, WHY would 'you', an individual human being, even be thinking otherwise?

Oh, and by the way, I do NOT 'have' a mind. So, the saying, "your mind" is a misnomer.

and "that's just human nature" isn't an excuse,

'What' is "just human nature"?

You NEVER said nor even alluded to ANY thing here, which could be seen, nor even thought, of as being 'human nature'.

its what is and has been and will be, and one must deal with it as is, not as one wants it to be.

I have NO idea what you are thinking of here.

Say what 'it' is, which you think or believe is 'human nature'.

false expectations of the world and human nature will fill your life full of regrets and disappointments.

But I do NOT have a regret about ANY thing that I have done, NOR am I disappointed about ANY thing. This is because I do NOT 'expect' ANY thing, from "others". I just already 'know' WHY ALL human beings do what they do.

Also, inform 'us' of what IS thee True 'expectations' of the world and human nature that you BELIEVE is true, which will fill all our lives full of NO regrets and disappointments, and let 'us' SEE if we agree with and accept them. Otherwise 'your' OWN expectations here could just be 'your' OWN ONLY, and thus could be just False and Wrong anyway.