Originally posted by SwissGambit
absolute, transcendent, universal
absolute, transcendent, universal
[now everyone repeat after me....]

absolute, transcendent, universal
absolute, transcendent, universal
[now everyone repeat after me....]

Absolute, transcendent, universal. Got it. thanks

Originally posted by jaywill

Universal absolute goodness? When the only example comes from observations of one tiny planet in a sea of near infinity? That's only a SLIGHT stretch

The sense of certain morally right and wrong things is not effected by space.

You make decisions frequently about good and evil without worrying what is being practiced on some remote for some more experienced Atheist to help you out ? Ask them.)

First off, you keep thinking I am an atheist, which I am not. I cannot deny the existence of some kind of god, it's a big universe and probably an infinite number of other universes and there may be beings out there who can manipulate space and time like we do taffy and if such a being came down here to Earth, you would have no way of knowing it was not the god you think it is, with motives unknowable but you would accept it as your Jesus god, since you are only human and a display of supernaturality would prove to you your god has come back to Earth when nothing of the sort happened, only an extremely advanced individual with its own agenda, forever unknown to you.

My morality comes from the concept of what gives the greater good and least harm to others including animals.

Of course you can push the goalpost all the way to your hell and back just saying the obvious, what is the greater good where does THAT come from, etc., etc., etc.

It is obvious to me what greater good is, does the planet benefit, do we destroy instead? Does a person I help actually get helped or did I inadvertently cause some other harm?

I don't need your god to do any of that analysis, the outcome tells me that.

So I learn from my mistakes in morality, my morality can change and it is not the flavor of the month thing like you would like to impose because you think your morality superior to ALL atheistic or agnostic moralities.

There you are dead wrong since you are just pinning your morality on 3000
ancient books that have little bearing on today's complex world. That is the main problem, your morality is stuck back 3000 and 2000 years in the past and therefore cannot change.

Morality is not absolute, it has to change with changing times and complexity of civilization.

For instance, new laws make you criminal if you don't fasten your seat belts so you feel morally obligated to recognize the fact a family may depend on your continued existence and not wearing seat belts can way increase your risk of being killed every time you drive your car.

Tell me where the morality of that one could have intersected with anything from 3000 years ago?

That is just one minor example of what I mean by changing times and changing moral standards. You cannot change your moral stance and any changes come screaming and dragging.

What does your moral code say about making a decision about letting one person die if it means saving the life of a thousand? What would you do when you find that one person to be your daughter or son? Wash your hands of the thing and let 1000 die? Unable to make a moral decision because it is outside your moral base?

Originally posted by sonhouse
First off, you keep thinking I am an atheist, which I am not. I cannot deny the existence of some kind of god, it's a big universe and probably an infinite number of other universes and there may be beings out there who can manipulate space and time like we do taffy and if such a being came down here to Earth, you would have no way of knowing it was not the ing and let 1000 die? Unable to make a moral decision because it is outside your moral base?

First off, you keep thinking I am an atheist, which I am not. I cannot deny the existence of some kind of god, it's a big universe and probably an infinite number of other universes and there may be beings out there who can manipulate space and time like we do taffy and if such a being came down here to Earth, you would have no way of knowing it was not the god you think it is, with motives unknowable but you would accept it as your Jesus god, since you are only human and a display of supernaturality would prove to you your god has come back to Earth when nothing of the sort happened, only an extremely advanced individual with its own agenda, forever unknown to you.

Then you are agnostic I suppose. But you want to be agnostic about the existence of God but not agnostic about how I might react to a imitation or a fake Christ.

This underestimation is because you do not know the work of the Holy Spirit within the kernel of a man's being. So in speaking of me being fooled by an Antichrist (and here "anti" as in the New Testament means "instead of" ) , I think you should speak for yourself.

In the end times a deceiver, the Antichrist, will appear. Any imitation Jesus Christ you may imagine from an extraterrestial being will certainly pale in comparison to this final Antichrist which the Bible prophecies is coming.

We will overcome the coming Antichrist. So I do not fear any extraterrestial arriving for some hypothetical similar activity. Do not underestimate "the Spirit of reality" whom Christ gave to those who love Him. He is Christ Himself, in His peumatic form, coming to make an abode with His beleivers:

"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:23)

And repeated again in different words:

" ... the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him of know Him ; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you.

I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you." (John 14:17,18)

Both passages speak of Jesus Christ Himself being dispensed into His believers, living an organic unity with them from deep within their being. He will not leave us as orphans (to be deceived by space aliens or antichrists) - He is coming to us. That is coming INTO us as the "Another Comforter", as "the Spirit of reality".

His coming is the coming of Himself with His Father - "We will come to him and make an abode with him" . The Triune God indwelling man makes it very difficult for us to be deceived by an Antichrist - intelligent space alien or Satan himself in a man.

My morality comes from the concept of what gives the greater good and least harm to others including animals.

Thanks for proposing an answer. So far you have told me that you have some innate sense of "the greater good." I knew that. I knew you and other humans do have some realization of a "greater good."

Let's see if you know where this intuitive knowledge of "the greater good" comes from.

Of course you can push the goalpost all the way to your hell and back just saying the obvious, what is the greater good where does THAT come from, etc., etc., etc.

No. I am not going to do that. Because there are delimmas concerning exactly WHAT the greater good might be in certain complex situations. So think a little better of me than that.

I acknowledge often it is not agreed upon by all what the particular "greater good" may be in some situations. However, all agree that there IS a "greater good". And that is significant.

Though humans do not always agree on specifics, the agree on concept of a greater good. Where do you think that comes from ?

It is obvious to me what greater good is, does the planet benefit, do we destroy instead? Does a person I help actually get helped or did I inadvertently cause some other harm?

I don't need your god to do any of that analysis, the outcome tells me that.

Regardless of how you strut around and brag "I don't need YOUR god boy" the possibility remains that your Designer has programmed into you a sense of the greater good which He had to give in the first place.

This conscience is implanted into you from somewhere ? Is it a chemical reaction ? Is it the result of interaction between molecules ?

I think the Cause has to have within to give. I think the effect cannot have within what it did not receive from the Cause -

"He who planted the ear, does He not hear ?

He who formed the eye, does He not see ? " (Psalm 94:9)

Your boasting that you don't need my god doesn't erase God's implanting within you that which He had to give.

An alternative explanation, to us being created in the image of God, is not yet forthcoming from you. A scowl "I don't need your god" is not an alternatice explanation of the source of your intuition concerning good and evil, planetary or otherwise.

So I learn from my mistakes in morality, my morality can change and it is not the flavor of the month thing like you would like to impose because you think your morality superior to ALL atheistic or agnostic moralities.

I think you are making up another argument. My questions do not imply:

1.) Atheists cannot be moral.
2.) Agnostics cannot be moral.
3.) Atheists cannot act with a higher standard of behavior than religious folks.

My questions only presupposes that ALL people have this intuitive sense of morality. And where does it come from ?

So your quip [in essence of] " I know you religious people think you're better than me ! " is beside the point.

There you are dead wrong since you are just pinning your morality on 3000
ancient books that have little bearing on today's complex world. That is the main problem, your morality is stuck back 3000 and 2000 years in the past and therefore cannot change.

This also is really not the point. I am talking about the intuitive moral consciousness that exists within us as human beings. If there were no Bible, don't you think we would STILL have some intuitive sense of a Moral Standard ?

In what country and in what age is cowardice a virtue and bravery a vice ?
Is such a thing effected by which century we talk about ?
Is such a thing effected by which culture we talk about ?

Universally, to act cowardly, say, in battle is seen in contempt. But to act with valor and bravery, say, in battle is seen as commendable. One behavior is held in honor - bravery. The other is held in low esteem - cowardice.

Do you think 3000 years or 5000 years has changed that attitude within all peple ? I don't.

So your quip "Your old old book is not MY morality boy !" is, I think, a strawman argument beside the point.

But if you did want to argue about that, I would mention that a written code should be able to stand the test of time.

Your comments below this about changing times etc. are misunderstanding of the real issue which I will attempt to address latter.

But up to this point you have neither said that you don't know where your moral consciousness comes from, nor have you told me where it comes from.
I see a few grumblings about non-Christians can be good too and the Bible's too old. That's all so far.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] First off, you keep thinking I am an atheist, which I am not. I cannot deny the existence of some kind of god, it's a big universe and probably an infinite number of other universes and there may be beings out there who can manipulate space and time like we do taffy and if such a being came down here to Earth, you would have no way of knowing it was ...[text shortened]... and the Bible's too old. That's all so far.

I should be working but I am so easily distracted!

I think the answer to your question of where this innate morality comes from is that it has evolved.

We are social animals. We have evolved that way over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Social animals tend to behave in ways that help the social group since doing that makes it more likely that members of the social group will survive to reproduce and thereby pass on their behaviour traits. Since social groups tend to be families or extended families, making a sacrifice (like giving up your food, or grooming your friends of parasites) will improve the survivability of your own genes.

These social behaviours will include caring for others, not killing, not cheating etc and the group will tend to punish any that it finds not conforming to those behaviours. These behaviours will also include defending the group and its resources from attack by predators and also from rival groups.

This, essentially, is the root source of our morality. When the social group can include the entire world, it boils down to 'be nice'.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by sonhouse
First off, you keep thinking I am an atheist, which I am not. I cannot deny the existence of some kind of god, it's a big universe and probably an infinite number of other universes and there may be beings out there who can manipulate space and time like we do taffy and if such a being came down here to Earth, you would have no way of knowing it was not the ing and let 1000 die? Unable to make a moral decision because it is outside your moral base?

Morality is not absolute, it has to change with changing times and complexity of civilization.

For instance, new laws make you criminal if you don't fasten your seat belts so you feel morally obligated to recognize the fact a family may depend on your continued existence and not wearing seat belts can way increase your risk of being killed every time you drive your car.

What people do is subject to change. As you point out, seat belts is a relatively recent invention with the automobile. Three thousands years ago, you are correct to point out that people didn't DO seatbelts. But there is a difference in what people DO and what they OUGHT TO DO.

The particular doing may be subject to change. But what they ought to do does not change. So I think your example of doing the right thing by DOING modern seat belts is not an example of relativistic morality.

Do not confuse the changing of behavioral situations with the unchanging moral duty. In dangerous transportation arrangements, one OUGHT to protect him or herself. The modern invention of seat belts does not prove shifting morality but a mere behavioral variation on how the duty to protect oneself should be technically applied.

Tell me where the morality of that one could have intersected with anything from 3000 years ago?

Your example is of how behavior changes in order to apply a unchanging moral standard. To protect one's body in transportation 3000 years ago called for specifics of older technology. That one OUGHT to protect one's body in transportation has not changed.

That is just one minor example of what I mean by changing times and changing moral standards. You cannot change your moral stance and any changes come screaming and dragging.

But you didn't demonstrate changing moral standards.
You demonstrated changing specific behaviors to an unchanging moral standard to protect oneself while moving swiftly.

What does your moral code say about making a decision about letting one person die if it means saving the life of a thousand? What would you do when you find that one person to be your daughter or son? Wash your hands of the thing and let 1000 die? Unable to make a moral decision because it is outside your moral base?

You use here the phrase "moral code". I will assume that you are still with me when I say I am asking about an innate inward intuitive sense of morality. Right now, that is the "code" programmed into the human conscience.

Moral dilemmas are often used to demonstrate moral relativism. And different people may be in dilemma over what the proper thing to do is in a difficult moral situation.

The dilemma actually proves that morality is absolute and not relative. There would be no dilemma if morality were relative. You may ask how so. Because the issue is human right to life in the dilemma you propose. If morality were not absolute you could say "It doesn't MATTER which choice is made. Who cares how many die and how many live?"

The very reason that the situation is difficult is because we AGREE on the moral standard of a human right to life. Whether the daughter or multitudes, we all agree, that human life is valuable. That is unchanging and universal morality.

The reason we struggle over the dilemma you propose is because we agree on the value of human life. While people may get the morality wrong in difficult situations they do not get it wrong on the basics. The valuableness of human life is clear, even if difficult problems involved are not.

Difficult problems in mathematical laws do not prove mathematics is not real.
Difficult problems in science do not prove natural laws are not real.
And difficult problems in ethics do not prove that absolute moral law does not exist.

Scientists do not deny that objectve world exists merely because they encounter difficult problems in the natural world. They may have trouble knowing the answer to a problem. It is the same with the morality programmed into human nature.

Your second example doesn't demonstrate there is no moral law within. And if there is a moral law within, what or who is the legislator as its source ?

I think the Legislator is a big living WHO rather than a non-living WHAT.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] Morality is not absolute, it has to change with changing times and complexity of civilization.

For instance, new laws make you criminal if you don't fasten your seat belts so you feel morally obligated to recognize the fact a family may depend on your continued existence and not wearing seat belts can way increase your risk of being killed every ...[text shortened]... ce ?

I think the Legislator is a big living WHO rather than a non-living WHAT.

You use here the phrase "moral code". I will assume that you are still with me when I say I am asking about an innate inward intuitive sense of morality. Right now, that is the "code" programmed into the human conscience.

Moral dilemmas are often used to demonstrate moral relativism. And different people may be in dilemma over what the proper thing to do is in a difficult moral situation.

The dilemma actually proves that morality is absolute and not relative. There would be no dilemma if morality were relative. You may ask how so. Because the issue is human right to life in the dilemma you propose. If morality were not absolute you could say "It doesn't MATTER which choice is made. Who cares how many die and how many live?"

You have made a good and useful distinction between relative morality and situational morality.

Some refinements of the concepts of moral absolutism and relativism is needed.

The moral sense is analogous to the visual sense in this way. We are physiologically equipped to see, and this includes binocular vision and associated mental capabilities to manage perspective and other cues of distance. We are physiologically equipped to sense moral value in alternatives, chiefly by triggering hormonally associated emotional reactions of sympathy, anger, etc. In the latter case what we "see" as moral is relies on more subtle and "trainable" mental capabilities.

What is absolute about the moral sense is what is absolute about vision. What is "out there" is perceived and interpreted. Or not... a person may be visually and morally blind, or debilitated, of unwilling to perceive (eyes or moral sense closed off).

However, new laws that make acts criminal do not necessarily create a moral sense of obligation. Of course you know that. Not should they. Your rationale about the family depending on you may be actual, but it is not the law that exists that gives seat belt wearing moral value. Instead the rationale gives the law moral value.

Not caring how many live or die can be part of an absolutist moral stance for the following reason. Moral stances are of three kinds: what is morally forbidden, what is morally permitted but not obligatory, and what is morally required. Acts that we don't morally care one way or the other about are morally permitted but not required. (We may care about such acts for other amoral reasons, such as personal gain.) So contrary to what you say, a moral absolutist may be neutral on the morality of certain acts.

I suggest some time on this subject at a philosophy website such as
http://plato.stanford.edu/

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] Morality is not absolute, it has to change with changing times and complexity of civilization.

For instance, new laws make you criminal if you don't fasten your seat belts so you feel morally obligated to recognize the fact a family may depend on your continued existence and not wearing seat belts can way increase your risk of being killed every ce ?

I think the Legislator is a big living WHO rather than a non-living WHAT.

Your common theme is your supposed perceived superiority of christian dogma over any other religion when in fact there is NOTHING that separates the morality of your religion from any other. You simply assume your sense of religious based morality is superior and therefore you can pontificate about it, looking down the nose of mere human based morals.

I hate to break it to you but religious morals are human based, not some pie in the sky supernatural being based morality, some absolute. That is ridiculous on the face of it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your common theme is your supposed perceived superiority of christian dogma over any other religion when in fact there is NOTHING that separates the morality of your religion from any other. You simply assume your sense of religious based morality is superior and therefore you can pontificate about it, looking down the nose of mere human based morals.

I ...[text shortened]... the sky supernatural being based morality, some absolute. That is ridiculous on the face of it.

Your common theme is your supposed perceived superiority of christian dogma over any other religion when in fact there is NOTHING that separates the morality of your religion from any other.

I have been asking about the make up of human beings, not about their belief systems. That is why we human beings, regardless of our spiritual beliefs, have a moral sense.

Yes, I do believe that Christ represents the highest morality among humans. But that is not at all the point of my questions about the way we humans are made. A stadium full of atheists ALSO have an innate moral compass.

My questions have been concerning this matter. The relative goodness or badness of the Christian Gospel compared to other belief systems is really another topic.

You simply assume your sense of religious based morality is superior and therefore you can pontificate about it, looking down the nose of mere human based morals.

And if I ask you again "Well, Why is that bad ?" You do not know how to answer except to grumble about "Well ... you Christians think you're better."

Penguin at least grasped the issue I am getting at. And he has proposed his answer. And I have not responded yet. I think you're at a dead end and are not facing my inquiry head on.

I hate to break it to you but religious morals are human based, not some pie in the sky supernatural being based morality, some absolute. That is ridiculous on the face of it.

Charicatures spoken with obvious contempt don't do much help here.

You won't propose a source of human morality. You can only throw out this kind of contempt for something "in the sky". This is just your colorful evasion with contempt.

Fact of the matter is that you don't know where your sense of moral obligation comes from. Fine. I won't ask you anymore.

Originally posted by Penguin
I should be working but I am so easily distracted!

I think the answer to your question of where this innate morality comes from is that it has evolved.

We are social animals. We have evolved that way over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Social animals tend to behave in ways that help the social group since doing that makes it more like ...[text shortened]... hen the social group can include the entire world, it boils down to 'be nice'.

--- Penguin.

I think the answer to your question of where this innate morality comes from is that it has evolved.

We are social animals. We have evolved that way over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years. Social animals tend to behave in ways that help the social group since doing that makes it more likely that members of the social group will survive to reproduce and thereby pass on their behaviour traits. Since social groups tend to be families or extended families, making a sacrifice (like giving up your food, or grooming your friends of parasites) will improve the survivability of your own genes.

Thanks for a reply. Let me know when you are off work some weekend. Then we can talk about your answer some.

These social behaviours will include caring for others, not killing, not cheating etc and the group will tend to punish any that it finds not conforming to those behaviours. These behaviours will also include defending the group and its resources from attack by predators and also from rival groups.

This, essentially, is the root source of our morality. When the social group can include the entire world, it boils down to 'be nice'.

--- Penguin.

After work, maybe this evening, come back.
And I want to review some concepts about Evolution and Naturalism given by Alvin Plantinga in light of your reply.

YouTube

Originally posted by jaywill

Your common theme is your supposed perceived superiority of christian dogma over any other religion when in fact there is NOTHING that separates the morality of your religion from any other.

I have been asking about the make up of human beings, not about their belief systems. That is why we human beings, regardless of our spiritual b ...[text shortened]... know where your sense of moral obligation comes from. Fine. I won't ask you anymore.

The fact that you profess the absolute superiority of christian morality clouds your perception of other systems of morality. For instance, look at this: Jainism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

Their moral system does not let them kill any animal while the Judeo-Christian system has no problem killing animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian#Ethical_value_system

I am just saying morality is not absolute and no matter how much you try to shoe horn absolutism into morality it won't fit in the broader context of world wide morality systems.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The fact that you profess the absolute superiority of christian morality clouds your perception of other systems of morality. For instance, look at this: Jainism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

Their moral system does not let them kill any animal while the Judeo-Christian system has no problem killing animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud ...[text shortened]... rn absolutism into morality it won't fit in the broader context of world wide morality systems.

With the Christian AND within the Jainist, where does a moral sense come from ?

That is the issue that you cannot seem to answer. Its ok. Think about it.

I think that whatever gave us this sense had to have HAD it to give.
I believe that the source of mankind could not bestow on man what it did not itself possess to impart.

I think the Bestower is a Moral Being. Now that leaves a lot of room for various kinds isms and monotheisms. But it simply is my belief that man did not invent himself that moral sense. It was stamped on our being by whatever created man.

No secret that I am a Christian. And no secret I believe in the God the Bible reveals. But my answer up to the point I wrote only proposes that the a transcendent Moral Legislator had to bestow upon man that sense of obligation on the creature.

The Moral Legislator is also our Creator. Now don't grumble because you really didn't give me any alternative answer. You only affirmed strenuously that you don't need no christianity god to be a good dude.

But you didn't tell me where does the sense of a obligatory Moral Standard upon all other human beings, come from. Ya didn't tell me.

You want to CHANGE the discussion to "Yea! Other religions can be good and even better than your Christianity. So there!"

Originally posted by sonhouse
The fact that you profess the absolute superiority of christian morality clouds your perception of other systems of morality. For instance, look at this: Jainism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

Their moral system does not let them kill any animal while the Judeo-Christian system has no problem killing animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud ...[text shortened]... rn absolutism into morality it won't fit in the broader context of world wide morality systems.

I am just saying morality is not absolute and no matter how much you try to shoe horn absolutism into morality it won't fit in the broader context of world wide morality systems.

The example you gave, of the seat belts, did not demonstrate no absolute moral standard.
I don't think your example of the dilemma of the daughter's life verses the multitude's life demonstrated it.

Why don't you see if you can think of an example that would demonstrate it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

Interesting. Maybe if you study Jainism in more detail you might be able to give an answer. I read looking for my answer. I did not read to the end yet. I read until the paragraph that said Jainism believes that natural laws of the universe are eternal.

It obviously highly regards honesty, self reliance, liberation, etc.
I suspected that anyway.

Man's various religions are often like a breaking system to keep people from going completely berserk. That is in principle.

Originally posted by jaywill

I am just saying morality is not absolute and no matter how much you try to shoe horn absolutism into morality it won't fit in the broader context of world wide morality systems.

The example you gave, of the seat belts, did not demonstrate no absolute moral standard.
I don't think your example of the dilemma of the daughter's life ve trated it.

Why don't you see if you can think of an example that would demonstrate it ?

Where does your requirement for a universal code of morality come from? There are 7 billion humans on the planet and many moral codes also. We haven't even considered morality from the other great minds on the planet either, they undoubtedly have moral codes we can't even conceive of, namely the great whales, Dolphins, Porpoises, and some of the great apes. They all think, they all have consciousness and have moral codes.

Where do you think the morality of advanced animals come from? That gets into the question of universal morality a lot deeper than just what you consider universal.

It is obvious Dolphins have moral codes, you can see that in the rescue of human swimmers, kids who get trapped in the water and they hold them up till a human can rescue them. If they were amoral, they could care less if a human drowned.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where does your requirement for a universal code of morality come from? There are 7 billion humans on the planet and many moral codes also. We haven't even considered morality from the other great minds on the planet either, they undoubtedly have moral codes we can't even conceive of, namely the great whales, Dolphins, Porpoises, and some of the great apes. ...[text shortened]... up till a human can rescue them. If they were amoral, they could care less if a human drowned.

Where does your requirement for a universal code of morality come from? There are 7 billion humans on the planet and many moral codes also.

Have you not yet understood that I am speaking of the thing within man that moves him to make a moral code at all ? Have you not yet understood that whether written or not written, within man there is a realization of a moral standard ?

There is the code of Hammurabi and an understood unwritten code of social norms. To torture babies for fun, we might see as universally frowned upon.
The human conscience protests.

You point out that there are other codes besides the ten commandments. But the question still remains why there should be any moral sense at all, universally, with mankind.

We haven't even considered morality from the other great minds on the planet either, they undoubtedly have moral codes we can't even conceive of, namely the great whales, Dolphins, Porpoises, and some of the great apes. They all think, they all have consciousness and have moral codes.

No other life on another planet has been yet found.

I don't know if it is appropriate to compare the instincts of animals with the human conscience.

Where do you think the morality of advanced animals come from? That gets into the question of universal morality a lot deeper than just what you consider universal.

I think there is NOTHING else on the earth like a human being. I did not say other creatures are not valuable and interesting. I said that there is no other creature on the earth like a human being. We are in our own class.

Dolphins, Chimps, ants, and termites are a wonder. But they do not compare to humans. That is not brag. That is just fact.

It is obvious Dolphins have moral codes, you can see that in the rescue of human swimmers, kids who get trapped in the water and they hold them up till a human can rescue them. If they were amoral, they could care less if a human drowned.

I once heard that in the decline of the Roman Empire a certain town, in dispair, elected a cow to be mayor. Do you think we should put forth Dolphins to run for high governmental offices ?

Though, we can see some obvious kinship of humans with much of the rest of the animal kingdom, we humans are still light years away in another unique class. No brag, just fact.

Now excuse me, my cat wants to use my PC for awhile.